Ex-CIA agent: We used torture and it worked

[RandyW]

On a serious note though, to suggest that we can torture people if we're absolutely sure they're terrorists is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. What are the criteria going to be for deciding?

[r0bly0ns]

I agree (With RandyW? Is that allowed?)


If there is no doubt, convicted in a court of law etc.... I'd be quite happy if they were 'put out of their misery'.

But torture? To try and get 'evidence'?
No thanks.

[RandyW]

Actually, the more I read Board Game Geek's posts, the more annoyed I get. I abhor terrorism as much as the next man, but to suggest not bothering with a trial and just torturing and then executing people leaves me with two thoughts:

1) He's an even worse troll than me
or
2) He's an idiot. What next BGG? Are you busy polishing your jackboots?

[BrilloPad]

He's an even worse troll than me

The only worse troll than you is Churchill. oh yes - you are churchill

[RandyW]

The only worse troll than you is Churchill. oh yes - you are churchill

I'm not Churchill

[Board Game Geek]

Sorry if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.

I'm just trying to say, under certain situations, the use of any tool at our disposal should be sanctioned.

The terrorists do not burden themselves with what is right and wrong. They seek to accomplish an objective, unfettered by the rules of engagement.

The forces of law and order however, have to operate within certain parameters.

That immediately skews the odds in favour of the terrorist and creates an unbalanced playing field.

But hey, so long as people are happy with that, that's their choice.

They may as well be working with the terrorists in that case.

[RandyW]

Sorry if you think I'm trolling, I'm not.

I'm just trying to say, under certain situations, the use of any tool at our disposal should be sanctioned.

What tools? What situations? Are you saying that sometimes it's OK to torture people and other times it isn't? Maybe you'd like to take it a step further. Maybe we should also torture their families, just incase they know anything. And their friends too. Oh, and the people they worked with, you never know what they might be hiding.

The terrorists do not burden themselves with what is right and wrong. They seek to accomplish an objective, unfettered by the rules of engagement.

The forces of law and order however, have to operate within certain parameters.

That immediately skews the odds in favour of the terrorist and creates an unbalanced playing field.

But hey, so long as people are happy with that, that's their choice.

They may as well be working with the terrorists in that case.

What a load of crap. You're saying that because I don't agree with torturing then executing people without a trial as you advocate that I may as well be working with terrorists?

As for there not being a level playing field, I'm glad it isn't level. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the playing field was level - We start behaving like terrorists we become just as bad as they are and they have even more motivation to hate us.

[Board Game Geek]

Are you saying that sometimes it's OK to torture people and other times it isn't?

Yes.

Torture operates on many levels; physical, psychological, and to varying degrees ; subtle, mild, moderate, extreme, lethal.

I'm not advocating torture for personal sadistic pleasure. I haven't specified what level of torture either. So don't assume anything.

But there is a time and place for everything, in differing degrees. Don't write off torture without understanding the varying levels and applications.

Believe you me, if there was an easier way, then I'd be all for it.

My greatest hope is that one day, there will be a device that sits painlessly on a person's head, linked to a monitor. When asked a question such as "Where were you on the night of the 15th" and the subject answers "At me mum's", the subconcious blows the gaff and shows the suspect stabbing 89 year old Ethel in the Kitchen.

That would be completely painless and not involve torture but allow for rapid conviction and summary justice. Who could argue with that ? Suspects cannot lie anymore and you always get the truth.

But back to reality, yes, torture comes in varying degrees and with different levels of effect.

To be honest, "torture" is such a medieval term, (when it usually was a barbaric and lethal process).

I think the term "cooerced cooperation" is more acceptable, as it covers the gamut of techniques, and doesn't necessarily mean "lethal or barbaric".

You're saying that because I don't agree with torturing then executing people without a trial as you advocate that I may as well be working with terrorists?

I was talking in the case of Terrorist Bob were it is pointless having a trial, since there is undeniable proof from CCTV, the media, and even Terrorist Bob says on TV "Yeah, it was me, he he".

OFC, such a situation would never arise, because terrorists are not stupid. I just wanted to create an extreme case and see at what point people would say "Hmmm...ok..in that case I concede" or whether they were rigid and inflexible in their thinking. Rigid and inflexible will not defeat the fluid dynamics of terrorism.

As for there not being a level playing field, I'm glad it isn't level. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the playing field was level - We start behaving like terrorists we become just as bad as they are and they have even more motivation to hate us.

You seem to labour under the misapprehension that if we were to meet their force with equal or greater force of our own, then they would hate us even more ?

Wake up for pity's sake won't you ?

They hate us and all that we stand for with a burning passion. It is not possible for them to hate us even more, because they are at the apex of their hate. Do you not comprehend the sort of people who we are dealing with here ? Do you live in La-La land ? Does everything look pink in your world through your rose-coloured spectacles ?

I wish I lived in your world. I really do.

But we are not in Kansas anymore, Toto, and our way of life is under threat. It's too late to finger point and find out who started it. The decision is clear. We either protect our life, or we do not. We either meet force with force, or we do not. We either continue to exist, or we do not.

Laws that are inviolate do not support a populace.
They paralyse and strangle it.

[RandyW]

Yes.

Torture operates on many levels; physical, psychological, and to varying degrees ; subtle, mild, moderate, extreme, lethal.

I'm not advocating torture for personal sadistic pleasure. I haven't specified what level of torture either. So don't assume anything.

But there is a time and place for everything, in differing degrees. Don't write off torture without understanding the varying levels and applications.

Believe you me, if there was an easier way, then I'd be all for it.

My greatest hope is that one day, there will be a device that sits painlessly on a person's head, linked to a monitor. When asked a question such as "Where were you on the night of the 15th" and the subject answers "At me mum's", the subconcious blows the gaff and shows the suspect stabbing 89 year old Ethel in the Kitchen.

That would be completely painless and not involve torture but allow for rapid conviction and summary justice. Who could argue with that ? Suspects cannot lie anymore and you always get the truth.

But back to reality, yes, torture comes in varying degrees and with different levels of effect.

To be honest, "torture" is such a medieval term, (when it usually was a barbaric and lethal process).

I think the term "cooerced cooperation" is more acceptable, as it covers the gamut of techniques, and doesn't necessarily mean "lethal or barbaric".



I was talking in the case of Terrorist Bob were it is pointless having a trial, since there is undeniable proof from CCTV, the media, and even Terrorist Bob says on TV "Yeah, it was me, he he".

OFC, such a situation would never arise, because terrorists are not stupid. I just wanted to create an extreme case and see at what point people would say "Hmmm...ok..in that case I concede" or whether they were rigid and inflexible in their thinking. Rigid and inflexible will not defeat the fluid dynamics of terrorism.



You seem to labour under the misapprehension that if we were to meet their force with equal or greater force of our own, then they would hate us even more ?

Wake up for pity's sake won't you ?

They hate us and all that we stand for with a burning passion. It is not possible for them to hate us even more, because they are at the apex of their hate. Do you not comprehend the sort of people who we are dealing with here ? Do you live in La-La land ? Does everything look pink in your world through your rose-coloured spectacles ?

I wish I lived in your world. I really do.

But we are not in Kansas anymore, Toto, and our way of life is under threat. It's too late to finger point and find out who started it. The decision is clear. We either protect our life, or we do not. We either meet force with force, or we do not. We either continue to exist, or we do not.

Laws that are inviolate do not support a populace.
They paralyse and strangle it.

We could argue about this ad infinitum. I think it's suffice to say that you and I aren't going to agree about these things anytime soon...

[Diver]

Ask no questions hear no lies. they know what you want, not what you want to hear.
ask no questions. when they start to talk, leave the room and ignore them, start again later.
same again.
and again.
and again
and again.
Then don't touch them, just sit and listen. they will tell you everything, and they will tell you the truth.

Extraction 101

Should be used as a matter of course, on Drug dealers, Pedophiles & Terrorists

Just for the hell of it