Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

Reply
Page 34 of 46 FirstFirst ... 26 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 42 ... LastLast
  1. #331

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,000
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses:
    I think Hull, we better keep Bush and his actions out of it. All of us on this thread would like to kick his butt whatever our views may be.
    Good point. OK a vote: all those in favour of torturing Bush? No information required from him (not sure he has any of value or whether he could give any articulate information anyway) just for the sheer fun of it.

  2. #332

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,593
    Quote Originally Posted by climber07:
    Well.......

    1. You cross-reference the information against the intelligence you already have on the topic in question.

    2. The new information is substantiated via assets on the ground or remote surveilance.

    3. Information provided as seen as deliberately false, is severely punished (I'll leave this to your imagination). Hence the point of keeping them alive.

    Why does everyone assume, oops we got our information lets release him / kill him. No one does this. Information is or rather should be ALWAYS substantiated.
    Again Climber you extract my sentence from its context - a reply to a post from Feeier if I am not mistaken.

    Anyway, taking your e-mail above, if you already have 1 and 2, why do you need to torture the guy?

  3. #333

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by freeier:
    points:


    1. There has never been prove that torturing does not work either. What we have seen here are isolated cases of failed attempts and some media glorified misbehavior of soldiers. I am sure Mossad have tonnes of success stories that they are not going to share with you.


    2. Everyone keeps saying that keep wars out of talking about terrorist and torturing, let me give two simple example:

    a. You are in a battle field in Afganistan. In the midst of a combat you have captured two enemy soldier. They are now POW.
    You asked them: where is your bunker? where is the machine gun?
    You need these information to continue your attack and help prevent further casualty in your camp.
    Do you:
    i. ask them very nicely under the geneva convention for answer, respect their wish not to provide the answer.

    ii. take the butt of your rifle and beat the hell out of them. using techniques that are most painful and yet does not kill.
    It depends what kind of world you want to live in... I'd say that in most cases with professional armies and reporters everywhere, it's something between your two extreme choices that happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by freeier:
    b. You are in the city of somewhere.
    You have some unproven information that there will be an attack on the city tomorrow the 4th july. You happened to capture a suspected terrorist with weapons.
    Do you:
    i. hold them in the cell nicely and wait for them to yield.
    ii. beat the hell out of them, or some electrocuting of their limbs, or whatever that works, to force them to provide information that you might be able to save lives tomorrow (if the attack is real).


    Tell me how absurd these cases are. And then tell me if you are there sitting and worrying about the safety of your soldiers and your people, which mean would you choose ?
    Absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you don't do ii in a civilized society. As it was said before...terrorist attacks are rare and insignificant events in the greater scheme of things and few people actually die from those. You don't throw out people's rights and liberties out the window on what ifs... It's insane!

    Who starts making the decisions about who gets tortured? What degree of guilt? Who determines who is guilty and who isn't? Forget judges, lawyers and trials to determine guilty and innocent, let's all do it behind closed doors with no accountability. If there's a relative that has been seen in the wrong place then you can be guilty. Where does it stop and who draws the line? Might as well go back and live like the Eastern block police states where a knock on the door might mean you were going to disappear forever... Throw out people's rights and liberties because a few extremists have blown bombs killing a few people? It's ridiculous and motivated by irrational fears...

    I think the rights and liberties of millions/billions is more important than a few thousand deaths. You can always say that maybe I would feel different if a relative died in a terrorist attack to which I can reply that maybe you would feel different if your sister was abucted in the middle of the night and is rotting in jail being tortured and is innocent. The knife cuts both ways and I choose rights and liberties over irrational fears.

  4. #334

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    it is also fair to say that most terrorists with NOTHING to loose (most of the time that is the case) would rather die (and be a martyr) than give any information (or shall I say CORRECT information) to his torturer.
    I don't necessarily agree with that...Terrorists are not all hard core, trained supermen. Look at the palestinian suicide bomber, they come in all shape and size and it's a very different thing to endure pain over several days compared to pushing a button and blowing yourself up.

    I have no doubt that torture can be effective sometimes although there are no guarantees the information will be accurate. I just don't think that a civilized society should resort to it.

  5. #335

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    Again Climber you extract my sentence from its context - a reply to a post from Feeier if I am not mistaken.

    Anyway, taking your e-mail above, if you already have 1 and 2, why do you need to torture the guy?
    If you only have #1 that means that your information is not complete and/or lacking a particularly crucial component.

    #2 You would not have (as that is what what implied by "new information" - obtained via interrogation).

    I also did not say torture is necessary in every case. Every single case is different and it is not a "one size fits all" situation.

    A good interrogator performs an in-depth evaluation of each specific subject (background, culture, physical characteristics and psychical / psychological condition ..if possible) and submits them to the interrogation technique which will be deemed most effective...(This may or may not include what you consider torture).

  6. #336

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,593

    "I have no doubt that torture can be effective sometimes although there are no guarantees the information will be accurate. I just don't think that a civilized society should resort to it."

    Then we agree Gilles.


  7. #337

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,042

    yes like what climber has said, the whole scheme of extracting information is to obtain as close to the big picture as possible.

    cross referencing the output from one guy versus another would provide you with the support you need to verify if one data point is correct/wrong versus the other data point.

    to all those people that insist terrorist fight is not the same as fighting a war.. go check it out. everywhere in the world where they treat a terrorist fight seriously, its as sophisticated as a war..

    the command centers are set up with contingency plans and SOPs to decide how battles are fight. Urban warfare research are carried out to ensure weapons suitable for the countryside can be used in the city!


  8. #338

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in an underground bunker at an undisclosed location
    Posts
    2,078
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    I all I can say to your experts is "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
    again....universally known that the outcome you suggest was 'doctored' (by those that were essentially 'yes' men) to suit the pretext of unilateral action, when most REAL experts agreed to the contrary, and would have proven otherwise.

  9. #339

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in an underground bunker at an undisclosed location
    Posts
    2,078
    Quote Originally Posted by climber07:
    If you only have #1 that means that your information is not complete and/or lacking a particularly crucial component.

    #2 You would not have (as that is what what implied by "new information" - obtained via interrogation).

    I also did not say torture is necessary in every case. Every single case is different and it is not a "one size fits all" situation.

    A good interrogator performs an in-depth evaluation of each specific subject (background, culture, physical characteristics and psychical / psychological condition ..if possible) and submits them to the interrogation technique which will be deemed most effective...(This may or may not include what you consider torture).
    Absolutely...

  10. #340

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,328
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    I don't necessarily agree with that...Terrorists are not all hard core, trained supermen. Look at the Palestinian suicide bomber, they come in all shape and size and it's a very different thing to endure pain over several days compared to pushing a button and blowing yourself up.
    Amen...

    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    I just don't think that a civilized society should resort to it.
    That is an old philosophical debate....

    Are we really that civilized? Has humanity really "evolved" that much? Sure we gained knowledge, and improved technology, but most of our key innovations over the past centuries have been derived out of finding new ways to kill or destroy each other.

Reply
Page 34 of 46 FirstFirst ... 26 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 42 ... LastLast