Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, because they're bullies who think they're above the law. Are you a bully who thinks you're above the law too?
Quote:
If my actions save my child, I'll live with the consequences. I just won't make it easy for the authorities.
Yes, you should have to pay the consequences for having people tortured. Glad you agree. Do you think the Republicans you support because they tortured people should pay the consequences as well, or do you think they should get a pass because you like it when people are tortured?
My opinion of what the father did is irrelevant to this discussion. It wasn't torture. This thread is about torture.
I disagree that it's irrelevant. What I'm doing is that you're selectively choosing when an action is warranted and when it's not.
You've said that 'torture' or the use of EIT's is NEVER warranted. To which I replied "OK, then if someone beats the hell out of someone else, regardless of the reason, is that acceptable."
You replied "it's revenge".
Therefore, in your eye's 'Revenge' is acceptable, use of EITs is not?
I just want to make sure I'm clear on your definition of when things are acceptable and when they're not.
When national security is at stake they're not. When a child molester is at stake, it's open season? Is that your stance?
I disagree that it's irrelevant. What I'm doing is that you're selectively choosing when an action is warranted and when it's not.
You've said that 'torture' or the use of EIT's is NEVER warranted. To which I replied "OK, then if someone beats the hell out of someone else, regardless of the reason, is that acceptable."
You replied "it's revenge".
Therefore, in your eye's 'Revenge' is acceptable, use of EITs is not?
I just want to make sure I'm clear on your definition of when things are acceptable and when they're not.
When national security is at stake they're not. When a child molester is at stake, it's open season? Is that your stance?
What you're doing is deflection.
The topic of this thread is torture. If someone beats the hell out of someone for revenge (you didn't say "regardless of the reason", you added that, and unless the reason is torture it's off-topic on this thread), it's not torture.
I didn't speak to the acceptability of revenge, because that's off-topic.
You don't need to be clear when I find things acceptable or not, you simply need to be clear that I ALWAYS find torture to be unacceptable.
You're last sentence clearly shows how you are unable to distinguish torture from other actions. Another indication of sociopathy.
Wow....
You're saying terrorists who cut off innocent people's heads, shoot children and burn woman alive deserve to be treated with respect?
Why not?
The Roman Catholic church did the same thing and they're respected.
So did the French government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pailhead
actually it's battery not assault
Technically, it's an assault consummated by a battery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
You have a very loose definition of 'torture'.
The only definition that matters is what the law says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
What the CIA did was simply 'enhance' the level of discomfort.
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Which one of those words do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
Have you read about the Dad who beat the hell out of the guy who molested his child?
That's not torture, but your surrender is accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
No, torturing suspects is not justified, because suspects are not terrorists, Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. So in this particular case, torture is not justified.
Changing how you label people doesn't alter Reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
But, let's say what you know is very vague. All you know or are led to believe is that a school is going to be attacked and hundreds of children will brutally murdered but you don't know when, where or by whom. BUT, you believe 100% that this person you have in custody does know.
OK, now, how do you get that information out of him?
It's called "investigating."
You get warrants and conduct searches, canvass for witnesses, conduct interviews, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove
Torture is subjective. Watching MSNBC would drive me to talk!
I see your point.
If I was strapped in a chair and forced to watch videos of David and Julie Eisenhower's wedding, or listen to Nixon's Checker's Speech over and over, I confess to anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
I think you've watched a few too many Tom Clancy movies.
Tom Clancy was an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
While your imaginary plot is interesting, it's not real world.
It is real world. It's actually happened. The US is not the only State to get burned on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel
But, to your one point about who knows what anyone knows? Well, that's why they call it interrogation. You think inviting the guy in for a cup of coffee is going to get you the information you need? I doubt it. But again, you try your passive method and I'll use mine and we'll find out who knows what.
Are you willing to be tortured?
By your own admission, it isn't about what you know, it's about what your interrogators believe you know.
If interrogators believe you know something, are you willing to be subjected to torture?
How many hours, days, weeks or months are you willing to be tortured, before you confess to something you do not really know?
And after you confess under duress -- being tortured -- are you willing to accept the punishment meted out to you, including execution?
Governments and people or groups in power have a long and distinguished history of labeling dissidents and dissenters as "terrorists" or "subversives" and then using torture against them for crimes that were never committed.
That's one reason torture is jus cogens and falls under peremptory norms.
Lawfully....
Who spent a week interrogating KSM about a briefcase nuke was it the FBI? Did they also run with it the way that the CIA did?
Lunev (a Soviet GRU defector) claimed in 1988 the Soviets had such devices, and that they were placed in strategic locations in the US and Europe. These areas have been thoroughly searched and no such devices have been found to exist, ever! Suggesting the Soviets did not have the technology to do this (if they had the tech I suspect they would have done this, it's a sensible plan given the climate between the US and USSR in the 60's-80's).
The Soviets did have the technology.
I watched a Soviet engineer company emplace one during Druzba '86.
It was funny, because I was talking with the Soviet officers who were my escorts, and we were discussing the differences between Western war-fighting and Soviet war-fighting, and how under Western style, back-pack nukes were used to create obstacles, and under Soviet doctrine, they were used to eliminate obstacles.
At the time, the US had just abandoned Western war-fighting style in favor of the superior Soviet-style. And then as soon as I got back to Germany, we withdrew all of the back-pack nukes unilaterally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Since 1988 we know that the smallest such devices weigh around 60-70lbs and it's yield is around 10-20 tons of TNT (which can easily be replicated without a nuke using a truck of ANFO). It's hardly a "briefcase" nuke and the tech that AQ have (and have access to) is impossible for them to manufacture even a full sized low yield nuke.
53 pounds.
Remember the 5 pound coffee cans?
They look just like that.
A cylinder/canister just over 9" in diameter with a height of 13 1/2"
Maximum yield is 2 kilotons, but that is using the Uranium-sleeve.
Without the Uranium-sleeve, the maximum yield is 1 kiloton. The US version was a multiple yield. You could select 0.01 kt, or 0.1 kt or 1.0 kt.
That was achieved by manipulating the plastic explosive lenses.
Weapons grade Plutonium has a spontaneous fission rate in excess of about 12,000 fissions per kilogram per second. For that reason, Plutonium is stored as pellets, and when used in spherical or linear implosion devices, it is shaped like an orange-wedge, being about 4mm-5mm in thickness, fabricated together.
So you have about 4.5 kg of weapons-grade Plutonium shaped like a ball that is hollow on the inside, and the "skin" is a few millimeters thick. And then around that, you have 32 plastic explosive lenses. The lenses are really two-in-one ---- a convex lens and a concave lens that are laminated together, because of the "cue ball effect."
You know how to billiard balls hit and then bounce apart? That's an example of an inelastic collision, and all you're doing here is playing with the inelastic collision.
The first shock-wave compresses the Plutonium sphere increasing the density, but due to inelasticity, it will fly apart decreasing density and reducing the possible number of fissions that could take place.
The Soviet version had 0.02 kt, 0.5 kt and 1.0 kt.
To get 1.0 kilotons, you fire all 32 plastic explosive lenses. To get 0.1 kilotons, you might fire 12 of the 32 (I don't know the exact number that are fired for the other yields).
The correct term is Atomic Demolition Munition.
The US Media corrupted that into "back-pack nuke" in 1984, based on the hysterical claims of an army veteran who claimed to be "special forces" and was tasked with a suicide mission of taking an ADM behind enemy (Soviet) lines and detonating it.
He was a liar.
One of the Houston dailies published the story, the Houston Chronicle or something like that.
Then PBS picked up the story and did a thing on news show Frontline.
That was in January 1985. Then during that same month, the solid fuel in a Pershing 1st Stage Motor and 2nd Stage Booster ignited torching a bunch of kids in Heilbronn.
Reagan was in Germany in April, and at a press conference, he was asked if there were "back-pack nukes" in Germany.
Reagan said, "No." even though there were 226 of them in Germany.
Then, the term "back-pack nuke" got corrupted into "suitcase nuke" or "briefcase nuke."
Any knowledgeable person would have realized that Lunev's claims were bogus, since nuclear warheads are very, very fragile, especially the electronic components, and that they must be kept under constant temperature, humidity and pressure until they are actually used.
A lightning strike anywhere within a few hundred meters of those weapons would have damaged them, causing them to malfunction or function with degraded performance.
You don't seem to understand the arguments against torture if you think "but it works!" counters them.
You are the bad guys.
No. Your attempt to justify torture just isn't working, is it?
I'm no friend to people who support torture.
Wah, wah, wah. Torture supporters haven't convinced me to support torture by wailing about 911 in 13 years, I doubt it will work now.
No, it's fear.
Pretty brave from the cheap seats. One can only hope your resolve is tested eventually. Smart money says you like almost any human folds like a cheap chair. Be a "Baptist". Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretend everything will work out in the end. Humorous to observe. Only fear anyone has is when they are presented with a challenging situation that warrants the response. However, preparation and an open eye coupled with excellent situational awareness keeps one moving. Doesn't it.
You are against it. Cool. I'm all for it and then some. Guess we will just have to disagree. I'm fine with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
