Information is not knowledge Knowledge is not wisdom Wisdom is not truth Never let the facts stand in the way of what you want to believe jomama.
Where in my post do I say it was a good or bad idea? are you interested in reading or simply covering your ears and talking away? I said why it wasnt easy to take away their friearms, show me where I say that it was a good idea. Your paranoid mind is running away with things as usual. How many people on this BBS do you think actually believe that the Bush administration wants the chaos in Iraq, that they want the insurgency? It's a royal screwup until proven otherwise. All you have now is just your paranoia going into overdrive. Don't let me stop you though. Please kep talking, it's quite amusing to hear you connect the dots from incompetency to international super conspiracy. maybe Bush is being ordered by his Freemason superiors to do this.
i dont watch 24, but i see people here all the time bringing up jack bauer's (wwjbd?) name, as if he is a real person. does the torture on 24 desensitize americans to the real torture being carried out in our name? does it condition americans to accept torture? seems that it is conditioning members of the military to accept it. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/496343p-418187c.html Defense bigs ask '24' to cool it on torture BY OWEN MORITZ DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER The grossly graphic torture scenes in Fox's highly rated series "24" are encouraging abuses in Iraq, a brigadier general and three top military and FBI interrogators claim. The four flew to Los Angeles in November to meet with the staff of the show. They said it is hurting efforts to train recruits in effective interrogation techniques and is damaging the image of the U.S. around the world, according The New Yorker. "I'd like them to stop," Army Brig. Gen. Patrick Finnegan, dean of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told the magazine. Finnegan and others told the show's creative team that the torture depicted in "24" never works in real life, and by airing such scenes, they're encouraging military personnel to act illegally. "People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they've just seen," said Tony Lagouranis, who was a U.S. Army interrogator in Iraq and attended the meeting. "The kids see it, and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about '24'?" Finnegan said. The show's co-creator and executive director, Joel Surnow, 52, a self-described "right-wing nut," seemed stunned by the complaints, but gave no hint that the torture scenes would be toned down - or shown not to work. "We've had all of these torture experts come by recently, and they say, 'You don't realize how many people are affected by this. Be careful,'" Surnow conceded. "But I don't believe that." Kiefer Sutherland, who is reportedly paid $10 million a year to play agent Jack Bauer, admits to being "anti-torture" and "leaning toward the left." He says he tries to tell people the show "is just entertainment." Joe Navarro, an FBI interrogation expert who was at the meeting, said he wouldn't want anyone like Bauer on his team. "Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected," he said. "You don't want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems." Bauer, as a counterterrorism agent, has just 24 hours to stop a terrorist plot endangering the U.S. and invariably chooses torture to force suspects to divulge critical secrets.
^ 24 is fictional but I think it raises a few interesting points. Torture is used commonly but doesn't always work. Jack Bauer was tortured a few times but never divulged information. 24 by its name implies you are acting on something very imminent and with good background knowledge of its imminence and danger. If you consider you know that day that something terrible is going to happen and you have good knowledge that the person you are holding has information that can stop that do you torture them to get that knowledge? I think that's a good question and something different than if you are only facing a general threat and primarily fishing for info.
It may be a good question for a hypothetical make believe world. It is almost impossible for that scenario ever to arise in real life. There is very little chance that there will only be one person who would know the information, while at the same time authorities are absolutely certain that is the one person who would know the information, and also are sure that torture will provide accurate results, and there are no other ways of finding that information via (surveilance, intercepted correspondence, etc.) Nearly all of those conditions would have to prevelant as well as several others to even be put into that situation. It may be fine to imagine, but it is hardly realistic and doesn't really change any realistic discussion on torture based in reality.
^ I agree FB that such situations are unlikely but I wouldn't rule out impossible. Lets say you're an FBI agent on 9/10/2001 and Moussaioui, who is in custody has said that something big is going to happen and the next day and Mohammed Atta is the leader, Al Qaeda chatter already supports that something big is in the works in the next few days. Mohammed Atta is captured and brought to you. He tells you that you tomorrow America will face an awful recknoning. Do you torture him to find out what it is?
But you can look at other information, and don't need to torture him. You can look at the fact that he was in flight lessons, as was Moussaoui, look at the info about Al-Qaeda using planes as weapons as weapons that was out there, and realize that something was up. Other interrogation techniques might also help you get the information, or at least lead to some place or someone else to find the details to the plot. Another sample would be to tell him that you were sorry for picking him up, and that you don't have enough evidence to hold him there, and then follow use the other pieces of the puzzle you have along with following him, surveilance, and let him lead you to the other members of the plot. It may not be 100% impossible for a situation to arise, where only person knows the information needed, and there are no other ways to get the information and we know that we will be able to get accurate info by using torture. And that one person happens to be in custody just shortly before the terrorist ETA
It's a TV show and I find it VERY scary that people would look at 24 and say "yea that's what we should do", SCARY. If there was an "eminent" threat and a person who was being held knew they only had to hold out for 24 hours under torture they could do it, or lie enough so that the lie could not be uncovered in time. In fact, during WWII, 24 hours was all time that French resisters told their people they had to resist torture for after that they could talk if they needed to. Though there are plenty of stories of people being tortured by the Germans and never telling them anything.
What militarily well trained interrogator is going to get their cues from a TV show? I think torture is not something that a country like the US should use, but to say that trained interrogators will use tactics they see on TV is just an insult to them. If they use torture, it will be because someone taught it to them.
interesting scenario... something similar actually happened, where someone told about the attacks (no torture necessary!) and our government ignored the warning. (from full article posted below)... – U.S. investigators confirmed in October that a 29-year-old Iranian in custody in Germany's Langenhagen prison last year made phone calls to U.S. police from his deportation cell that an attack on the World Trade Center was imminent in "the days before the attack." The warning was considered the threat of a madman. the system's to stop something like 9/11 were in place. the problem was the incompetence (or criminality) of those in charge. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html The White House again Friday denied it had advance knowledge that a Sept. 11-style attack was coming, though it acknowledged it knew Usama bin Laden was bent on attacking the United States. "The president was aware that bin Laden, of course, as previous administrations have well known, that bin Laden was determined to strike the United States. In fact, the label on the president's (presidential daily briefing) was 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States,'" White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Friday. Indeed, Fox News has reported many examples of "missed leads" that the Bush administration was given prior to Sept. 11. Among those examples: – The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan. – An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center. – German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests. – Pakistanis were taken into custody June 4 in the Cayman Islands after they were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City; they were questioned and released, and the information was forwarded to U.S. intelligence. – Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001. – In July and August, British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative. Fawwaz, suspected of participating in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, was arrested after Sept. 11. – Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent. – French intelligence echoed the "general" information in the final week of August. – Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets. – Millennium bomber Ahmad Ressam testified in closed and open court trials relating to his Dec. 1999 arrest for trying to bring bomb-making materials across the Canadian border that attack plans, including hijackings and attacks on New York City targets, were ongoing. – An Islamic terrorist conspiracy was uncovered in 1996 in the Philippines to hijack a dozen airplanes and fly them into CIA headquarters and other buildings. Among the discoveries was a plot for a "bojinka" – a big bang. The information was discovered on a computer and noted in the 1997 trial of Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. – U.S. investigators confirmed in October that a 29-year-old Iranian in custody in Germany's Langenhagen prison last year made phone calls to U.S. police from his deportation cell that an attack on the World Trade Center was imminent in "the days before the attack." The warning was considered the threat of a madman. – In October, U.S. government officials confirmed that India's intelligence agency had information before the attacks that two Islamist radicals with ties to Usama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House. India's information was not provided to U.S. intelligence until Sept. 13. – In February and April of 2001, the world's most extreme Islamic terror groups held meetings in Beirut and Tehran, respectively, to set aside their differences and unite for jihad (holy war) against Israel and the United States. The two unprecedented meetings had over 400 militants in attendance. They called it "the Jerusalem Conference," aimed at uniting behind the Palestinians and winning total Arab control over Jerusalem. Sources say the group agreed on a document and the creation of an actual organization now known as "the Jerusalem Project." The document included the statement: "The only decisive option to achieve this strategy is the option of jihad in all its forms and resistance … America today is a second Israel." The participants included leaders of Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Qatar, Yemen, the Sudan and Algeria. Sources say at least one participant went to the conference from the United States and returned to the country afterward. U.S. intelligence sources have identified two leaders of the Beirut-based Jerusalem Project. Sources have also told Fox News that the memo from the FBI Phoenix office about Arabs training in U.S. flight schools never reached headquarters because FBI counterterrorism officials were overwhelmed by the bombing of the USS Cole. The memo ended up "sitting on a shelf," according to sources. The sources also said officials were too overwhelmed with intelligence information to tap Zaccarias Moussaoui, who was taken into custody in August, after a Minnesota flight school reported that the alleged 20th hijacker of Sept.11 was interested in learning how to fly, but not take-off and land. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, experts have predicted that the next worldwide scourge would be terrorism. There are literally dozens of reports, studies and court cases in which hijackings, including those that would end up with crashes into buildings were discussed. In 1999, the Federal Research Division at the Library of Congress published its own report entitled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?" which described that "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to Al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House." Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council for whom the report was written, said that in 1999, "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," he said. "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat." Gannon said it is "egregiously unfair" to blame the president for failing to act to prevent Sept. 11 since there was no "actionable intelligence."
hey that article was written in 2002, any updates to it that you saw? If that's all true, wow, just wow. Whats the point of al the wiretapping stuff and reading our emails and whatnot if they not gonna do something with useful information?
did you even read the article? a general and 3 top fbi and military interregators say "24" is encouraging abuses in iraq. do you think you know better than them? how about the words of an actual interrogator? is he insulting the other interrogators? "People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they've just seen," said Tony Lagouranis, who was a U.S. Army interrogator in Iraq and attended the meeting when army brig. gen. patrick finnegan, dean of the u.s. military academy at west point says stuff like "I'd like them to stop", dont you think he has a reason? the shows director and creator says "We've had all of these torture experts come by recently, and they say, 'You don't realize how many people are affected by this. Be careful,'" Surnow conceded. "But I don't believe that." i guess like you, he knows better than the experts.
If you noticed I wasn't saying that we should do things like in 24 just pointing out issues it raises for discussion. Further I also pointed out how 24 itself shows that torture doesn't always work. There is a major flaw to the French Resistance tactic and that is if the Germans kill the person or not and / or if they continue to torture the person. You could say that I will hold out for 24 hours but that might be moot if part of the torture is to threaten your life so you only have a few hours to decide if you live or if they threaten that if you don't talk and if what you say doesn't prove true you will continue to be tortured. I have my own doubts about whether torture works but if given severe enough stakes I can see how people would resort to it.
torture is not a reliable way to gather information. let's listen to the experts on this stuff... Army Brig. Gen. Patrick Finnegan, dean of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and others told the show's creative team that the torture depicted in "24" never works in real life, and by airing such scenes, they're encouraging military personnel to act illegally.
If you had bothered to read my post one more time, you woulda read between the lines and saw that I was implying that any form of torture was TAUGHT to them by a SUPERIOR. To pass it off that they learned these techniques from watching TV is just passing the buck so they don't get criticized for using the very techniques they were taught. In case you need to be reminded, this actually is in line with your idea that torture is PROMOTED by the U.S. military. do you have anger issues or something? things change in 5 years, sometimes the information gets updated, thats all I asked. if you're going to go off everytime someone asks you something, spend less time in D&D and more time on conspiracy theories about how the U.S. is promoting torture to further their goals.
rather than "read between the lines" id rather read what you actually wrote and repsond to that. obviously, the torture techniques are taught to them, but im going to go ahead and take the word of the brigader general, military and fbi interrogators over you when they say that "24" is "encouraging abuses". why, simply b/c i am asking for clarification from you regarding posting old articles? stop being so sensitive. seriously, what is the shelf-life on news articles? are you going to ask for "updates" on articles from 2002 and before? articles from 2005 and before? what is the cut-off date? wouldnt "updates" be actually posted in the articles? i think that happens sometimes. anyway, do you really need an "update" for the article which talks about how days before 9/11 an iranian prisoner in germany warned u.s. police that an attack on the WTC was imminent? again, i really dont know how asking for clarification from you on what the shelf-life is for old news articles constitutes me "going off". stop being such a baby.
Aren't you the one who's been saying all along that the U.S. military is promoting abuses? Are you now going to pretend that the interrogators are actually getting the inspiration to torture from a TV show just because you disagree with me? If there is torture, it is from above and if not explicitly ordered, it is still approved just by the fact that it is allowed to happen at the very least. LOL, and yet even though you believe that torture is being promoted, you would choose to go against your own stance just because we have a argument about it. Please make up your mind, and don't change it when it's convenient for you. As for your comment about being sensitive, let's keep the comedic comments out of the discussion, try taking your own advice first. The next time someone asks you to give an update on something, a simple "no, I haven't bothered to check" would have been sufficient. BTW, things happen in 5 years. information changes, maybe we get even more detailed information. Unless you choose to believe that nothing else has been discovered within the last 5 years since an article was written.
no. "the military" is not promoting abuses. experts w/in "the military" are soundly against torture as an interrogation technique. man, the ego! yes, just because i disagree with you i am now going to pretend that interrogators are getting the inspiration from a tv show. get over yourself. if you remember, i was the one who posted the '24' article and you were the one who started arguing w/ me about it - are you pretending that the interrogators are NOT getting inspriation to torture from a tv show, despite experts saying they are, just because you disagree with me? i am not pretending anything - i am citing a brigadeer general, fbi and military interrogators who say that is exactly what is happening. but again, you know more than those people, dont you? seems like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. so i assume that from now on when you post an article from earlier than a certian date you will check for "updates"? or when others post articles earlier than a certain date you will be there to ask if there were any "updates"? again, im just trying to figure out what your official shelf-life is for articles. help me out here. i want to be sure and abide by your rules - if i post an article from 2006 do i need to check for "updates"? what if its from january 2007? facts change afterall...apparently
