A simpler solution would be just to make it legal. Then USA citizens would know that if the security services have some reason to suspect that, for example, their grandmother is linked to some suspected terrorism activity she may be tortured. And then everyone can stop all this silly playing with semantics and get back to those good old fashioned USA values! Granted granny may no longer be able to make a thanksgiving apple pie because the bones in her hands never quite healed but at least everyone can sleep easy at night knowing that they are safe, well except for granny who wakes up screaming at 2am most nights and has to be drugged.
Last edited:
A possible solution to our rape problems.
Let 'em do it.
...
No, bear with me here, and pardon me if I get any legal aspects wrong. Consider the concept of the "citizen's arrest." Those nutbags who tried to detain Dick Cheney aside, this is the legal construction that allows a citizen witnessing a crime to temporarily assume the power of arrest--that is, to act as an officer of the law with respect to apprehending and restraining a miscreant until actual police arrive. If the arrest is performed more or less by the book and it's proven that the citizen acted properly, he or she is granted legal immunity from the charges of assault, wrongful imprisonment and so forth that one would normally incur by leaping upon somebody and wrestling them to the ground. If, however, the arrest is unjustified, the citizen is not protected and remains fully liable for the fact that they just tackled and hog-tied some random dude. In other words, if you can prove you were justified after the fact, you have the right under the law to do some pretty metal stuff to a guy--as long as you don't mind the risk that you'll be prosecuted if you can't.
See where I'm going here? We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a person needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to blow their load--but we should also make it very clear that they will not automatically be granted the leeway to do so. If you can definitively prove (for a pretty steep definition of of the word) that the winsome slut in a low cut mini dress was begging for it. Yes, fine, we'll pardon you after the fact. If, as in most cases, it turns out you just ripped the belly out of someone's daughter, whose closest brush with swinging was in a playground next to the slides, then we take you into a little room somewhere and sodomise you you with a rubber cock until you stop twitching. And we make it clear by both word and deed that when in doubt, we'll go with the rubber cock.
Sound fair?
Let 'em do it.
...
No, bear with me here, and pardon me if I get any legal aspects wrong. Consider the concept of the "citizen's arrest." Those nutbags who tried to detain Dick Cheney aside, this is the legal construction that allows a citizen witnessing a crime to temporarily assume the power of arrest--that is, to act as an officer of the law with respect to apprehending and restraining a miscreant until actual police arrive. If the arrest is performed more or less by the book and it's proven that the citizen acted properly, he or she is granted legal immunity from the charges of assault, wrongful imprisonment and so forth that one would normally incur by leaping upon somebody and wrestling them to the ground. If, however, the arrest is unjustified, the citizen is not protected and remains fully liable for the fact that they just tackled and hog-tied some random dude. In other words, if you can prove you were justified after the fact, you have the right under the law to do some pretty metal stuff to a guy--as long as you don't mind the risk that you'll be prosecuted if you can't.
See where I'm going here? We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a person needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to blow their load--but we should also make it very clear that they will not automatically be granted the leeway to do so. If you can definitively prove (for a pretty steep definition of of the word) that the winsome slut in a low cut mini dress was begging for it. Yes, fine, we'll pardon you after the fact. If, as in most cases, it turns out you just ripped the belly out of someone's daughter, whose closest brush with swinging was in a playground next to the slides, then we take you into a little room somewhere and sodomise you you with a rubber cock until you stop twitching. And we make it clear by both word and deed that when in doubt, we'll go with the rubber cock.
Sound fair?
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
IIRC? What exactly are you recalling?
Almo
Masterblazer
Torture provides unreliable info. Figure it out, people.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Jontg has that covered. If the confession can't be substantiated, we get to beat the interrogator to death with a brick.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Also, for the record, I'm absolutely against torturing people to gain confessions.
I am, on the other hand, in principle willing to consider torturing people in certain cases to try to obtain actionable operational intelligence, where lives are at stake. I'm also absolutely opposed to using intelligence gained in such a way and for such a purpose, in a criminal trial as evidence for the prosecution (or the defense, really).
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
OK, time to start being skeptical then. What is the evidence that torture is effective as a means of obtaining actionable operational intelligence?
Dave
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
A bit of out of the box thinking here:
One way to reduce the problem of detainees and torture of same is to change the kill or capture policy for certain terrorists.
Delete "or capture" from the orders.
DR
One way to reduce the problem of detainees and torture of same is to change the kill or capture policy for certain terrorists.
Delete "or capture" from the orders.
DR
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Couldn't tell you, honestly. I'm sure you're already aware that high-ranking Bush administration officials have claimed that it does, but I haven't looked into those claims and have no idea if they're true.
However, if evidence supporting such claims does surface, I'm willing to consider torture, in principle, as I described above. Are you?
Meanwhile, here's a simple protocol:
Politely ask a subject to make testable claims about terrorist activity they've been involved in. If they refuse, ask... impolitely. Escalate until testable claims are made. Test the claims. If they are false, keep escalating until claims are made that test true. Reward the subject whenever progress is made. Escalate whenever progress is not made, or is reversed. Optionally, begin by restricting queries to claims which have already been tested by other means.
It's often claimed that tortured confessions are worthless, because a subject will say anything to stop the torture. They'll even tell false stories, if they don't know any true stories that suit the purpose.
So by the same token, it should be the case that if a person will say anything to stop the torture, they'll tell true stories, in the form of testable claims, if they know any that suit the purpose.
Like I said, I don't have any evidence, but it seems to follow logically that the same principles of human psychology that make tortured confessions worthless, make tortured revelations of operational intelligence worthwhile.
Finally, please help me be clear on where you stand. Some people take the position that torture is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not it is proven to produce life-saving intelligence. Is that your position? Or is your position that if it could be proven that torture, properly implemented, can produce life-saving intelligence, then it would be ethically acceptable to permit it within certain boundaries?
Jontg,
The scenario you describe is more or less reality.
Torture is illegal in civilised countries but it is quite likely that the court would be somewhat understanding it a police officer had a clear case. (1/16)
Theprestige,
Your scenario does not account for the random passer-by with no useful knowledge to save himself with.
The scenario you describe is more or less reality.
Torture is illegal in civilised countries but it is quite likely that the court would be somewhat understanding it a police officer had a clear case. (1/16)
Theprestige,
Your scenario does not account for the random passer-by with no useful knowledge to save himself with.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Sure it does: If we suspect that to be the case, we beat the interrogator to death with a brick. I call it The Jontg Clause.
It's not foolproof, but then neither is the scenario where we put an innocent man in prison for life because he was somehow unable to prove his innocence in a court of law. Or the scenario where we kill innocent civilians who were unable to leave a war zone before the airstrikes started. If we're going to allow policemen and prosecutors and juries and generals to make judgement calls in matters of life and death and human suffering, why not interrogators?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What, exactly, sets "torture" apart from every other judgement call on matters of life and death and human suffering we currently condone?
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
What's this "we" garbage? That lower forms of animal life like Cheney, Rummy, Gonzo and Yoo apporved it does not mean that America did.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Seriously.
We allow generals to make judgement calls on whether or not to drop bombs and roll tanks. We allow policemen to make judgement calls on whether or not to use deadly force. We allow juries and judges and state governors to make judgement calls on whether or not to imprison (and even execute) alleged criminals.
Matters of life and death and human suffering. Judgement calls. Condoned by governments. Accepted by citizens. All day, every day.
But when it comes to interrogation, "torture" gets blurted out like a magic word in an FOTL admiralty court.
Every time this topic comes up, I ask what sets interrogation apart from every other case of making judgment calls in matters of life and death and human suffering. And every time, all I get in return are appeals to incredulity and emotion.
Seriously? If you have a rational answer to my question, please just give it already.