Jesse Ventura says water boarding is indeed torture

[Crossbow]

This is, of course, wrong.

If you are looking for an item, and I tell you were the item is, verification is finding the item where I told you to look. Without that information, you would wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to look.

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are finding to be so wrong. I said, that intelligence data will be verified if it is possible to do so.

By your own example, you are supporting just what I said.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are finding to be so wrong. I said, that intelligence data will be verified if it is possible to do so.

By your own example, you are supporting just what I said.

here is what you said:

And then I went on to say that if the information gleaned through torture can be verified, then that rather implies that the torture was not needed in the first place.

Let me walk you through it...

I refused to tell you where the item was. You tortured me, I told you were the item was. You verified the information by retrieving the item.

The information was not available in any other way. Without torture, you had nothing.

You said that if it could be verified after torture, it implies the torture was not necessary. This is wrong. Without the torture, you would not have known where to look, period.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, but you are the one who has lost track of things.

I never said that information gleaned through torture had to be verified. Instead, I said that information gleaned through torture should be verified if it is possible to do so.

Now you're just nitpicking. Have to. Should. Come on. The point is that people verify the information they get, both from torture and more savoury means. Do you agree?

If so, then it's not unique to torture -- in fact it's true no matter where your info comes from -- and thus your objection is irrelevant.

Hell, you didn't even admit that you went wrong in your last post by completely reversing what I said.

 

[DragonLady]

That would make undercover/sting operations impossible.

I'm starting to think that they should be impossible.

Is it really such a bad thing that if someone hires a hitman to kill his wife, the hitman might turn out to be an undercover cop ? I fail to see the problem.

Seems to me there's far too often a form of enticement involved, even if it's just the kinds of psychological pressure that's been brought up upstream.

Just a little "encouragement" to buy more drugs so it becomes a felony, or a bit of "kind suggestion" that leads to taking a step that might not otherwise be taken.

To my thinking LEO should have to be able to stand up as pillars of the community and be expected to provide the shiny example of good behavior the rest of us are expected to uphold, and that starts at the most basic level -taking away the lies and misleading actions.

 

[beren]

Now you're just nitpicking. Have to. Should. Come on.

Words have meanings.
Why not say what you mean and avoid these issues you keep having ....

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's a balancing game. Go too far towards suspect rights, you hamper investigations. Go too far towards allowing cops to steamroll suspects, you end up with innumerable innocent people in prison.

Right now the pendulum has swung way over towards law enforcement's side. It can move back without going all the way.

Also, as long as everything is properly documented, it can be sorted out at the trial level.

I don't see it as a pendulum. If the optimal suspect defense exercise is simply exercising your rights, and the primary police strategy depends on people waiving their rights, then police should be stripped of their power to get suspects to waive their rights. I don't care how it affects criminal justice.

 

[DragonLady]

I don't see it as a pendulum. If the optimal suspect defense exercise is simply exercising your rights, and the primary police strategy depends on people waiving their rights, then police should be stripped of their power to get suspects to waive their rights. I don't care how it affects criminal justice.

I agree.

It's just another way the LE is causing more pain and trouble than many of the suspects and criminals.

 

[Belz...]

Words have meanings.

It's clear that Crossbow thinks we have to check the information, so complaining that I used that works instead of "should" is just a distraction. We're not robots. The slight change in meaning shouldn't have been a problem, but I suppose pointing out the change instead of carrying on the conversation allows us to avoid... carrying out the conversation because it's uncomfortable.

Why not say what you mean and avoid these issues you keep having ....

How about you deal with your own issues?

 

[Crossbow]

here is what you said:



Let me walk you through it...

I refused to tell you where the item was. You tortured me, I told you were the item was. You verified the information by retrieving the item.

The information was not available in any other way. Without torture, you had nothing.

You said that if it could be verified after torture, it implies the torture was not necessary. This is wrong. Without the torture, you would not have known where to look, period.

OK then, I think that I see what it is that you are driving at, so allow me to respond ...

Your scenario still does not show anything that I have not already stated.

After all, I am sure that torture can be used to determine all sorts of unknown facts about a certain person such as the name of their favorite pet, where the Christmas presents are hidden, how any times a husband has cheated on his wife, and so on.

But so what if such facts are determined?

If one is using torture to obtain information about his enemy, then while such details may be quite interesting they are also quite useless details.

Also, I have already stated that while torture can work to obtain data about one's enemy, but that torture is a very poor way to collect such data since by the time the person in question is apprehended, tortured to the point where they provide the data, and then the data is distributed to the right people who can make use of the data, then usefulness of data collected through the torture is almost always of no real value.

At least that is the way torture has worked for collecting data in all of recorded human history and I do no see any reason why thing will change now. In fact, I do not know of even one case where data produced by torture has had any real impact on the course of military history.

I said that if the information obtained through torture could be verified, then that rather implies that the torture was not necessary. I still fail to understand why you keep insisting that the statement is incorrect.

I think that what you are doing is simply looking at one of my several postings on this issue and responding to just that one posting. Therefore, I request that you read all of my postings on this issue and I do expect that you will find that we are actually in good agreement with this issue.

Thanks much.

 

[Crossbow]

Now you're just nitpicking. Have to. Should. Come on. The point is that people verify the information they get, both from torture and more savoury means. Do you agree?

If so, then it's not unique to torture -- in fact it's true no matter where your info comes from -- and thus your objection is irrelevant.

Hell, you didn't even admit that you went wrong in your last post by completely reversing what I said.

Are you just trying to be dense?

I flat out said that all intelligence data (which includes intelligence data that is produced via torture) should be verified if it is possible to do so.

So what the hell is your problem with that simple statement? Intelligence services have operating that way ever since there was such a thing.

 

[Belz...]

Are you just trying to be dense?

There's really no need to this, but if you want to dance, I'll be happy to oblige.

I flat out said that all intelligence data (which includes intelligence data that is produced via torture) should be verified if it is possible to do so.

So what the hell is your problem with that simple statement?

I told you the problem I had with it. You used it as an objection to torture, specifically, when it's clear that it applies to ALL forms of intelligence-gathering: you need to check your information. You should. You must. You have to. Whatever wording you want to use comes back to the same thing: torture isn't unique in that regard. Your objection is therefore irrelevant.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't see it as a pendulum. If the optimal suspect defense exercise is simply exercising your rights, and the primary police strategy depends on people waiving their rights, then police should be stripped of their power to get suspects to waive their rights. I don't care how it affects criminal justice.

I don't entirely disagree. My objections would be to the damage practically implementing this would do - the first time some really bad dude was allowed to get away because police couldn't interrogate a tangential figure, there would be so much uproar that we'd end up with electrodes and iron maidens in every police district.

But conceptually, I think I'm closer to your position than our current standard.

Fundamentally, all of these rules largely effect poorer less savvy folks as regardless of what police are allowed to do, wealthier people more familiar with the system will exercise their rights and be able to afford attorneys.

 

[Crossbow]

There's really no need to this, but if you want to dance, I'll be happy to oblige.



I told you the problem I had with it. You used it as an objection to torture, specifically, when it's clear that it applies to ALL forms of intelligence-gathering: you need to check your information. You should. You must. You have to. Whatever wording you want to use comes back to the same thing: torture isn't unique in that regard. Your objection is therefore irrelevant.

So, ...

I suppose the summary is that when I say that all intelligence data should be verified, if it is possible to do so, then I am wrong for saying so.

However, when you say that all intelligence data should be verified, if it is possible to do, then you are correct for saying so.

Therefore, all that I have to do is figure out this Moebius Strip logic and then everything will be just peachy. As such, I will make sure to let you know when, and if, such a thing ever does occur.

 

[Belz...]

I suppose the summary is that when I say that all intelligence data should be verified, if it is possible to do so, then I am wrong for saying so.

However, when you say that all intelligence data should be verified, if it is possible to do, then you are correct for saying so.

I find it very interesting that you called me dense when you seem to be incapable of understanding a simple principle that I've repeated several times by now.

The summary isn't that at all. If it were, we'd both be right. The summary is that your objection doesn't apply only to torture, and so the need to verify the information is not a downside to torture, because you still need to verify the information if you got it through non-torture.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

 

[Belz...]

Terribly sorry about the delay, by the way. I said I'd check for examples of torture working but through distraction and laziness I keep putting it off or forgetting. The little I checked kept bringing up the CIA thing, which aren't good enough to qualify as a definitive conclusion anyway.

So, tell you what, I'll retract my claim for now, and the next time this topic comes up, I'll look it up before opening my big mouth.

 

[Crossbow]

Terribly sorry about the delay, by the way. I said I'd check for examples of torture working but through distraction and laziness I keep putting it off or forgetting. The little I checked kept bringing up the CIA thing, which aren't good enough to qualify as a definitive conclusion anyway.

So, tell you what, I'll retract my claim for now, and the next time this topic comes up, I'll look it up before opening my big mouth.

Thanks much for the concession.

If you do not mind taking a bit of advice from me, I have been looking off on on for years regarding the use of torture in collecting valuable intelligence data, and there really just is not any such data. I expect that the reason why is simply due to the fact that torture is actually a poor way to collect such data.

Like I said before, by the time the person is apprehended, then delivered to the torture site, then the torture is applied, then the data collected, and then the the data has been distributed to the people who actually need it, then the data collected is almost always of little to no use. At least that is how it has worked out in all of recorded history.

Even though popular fictional dramas (such as that TV show 24) often show torture to be quite valuable in obtaining that badly needed bit of data which makes all the difference at the critical moment, but the reality of the situation is quite different indeed.