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.
i did not wish to bring national or local or state laws.
A crime has been committed, so this is a law enforcement issue. That's how civilized people handle these things. We're not in the Dark Ages, here.
Quote:
The question was would you waterboard someone if you knew it was only chance to save your family. You would have to do the water boarding yourself to save your family
Hold it right there. Now you're loading the question with the assumption that it would actually work, which isn't a given at all . (Actually, it's highly unlikely.) My wife has declared that she'd divorce me if I did so, so there's that to take into consideration.
I really think I wouldn't, but I'm open to the fact that I might snap under that sort of emotional duress. The instinct to preserve one's family runs deep and has led people to do completely disproportionate things in the past.
So we need to make such decisions ahead of time, with cool minds and clear heads - and codify them in laws and constitutions. People are rash, thoughtless creatures when they let their emotions take over.
Using the "they're coming for your family" ploy has been an eternal favorite of propagandists. It's not as if it's not pretty obvious where you're going with this, after all.
A crime has been committed, so this is a law enforcement issue. That's how civilized people handle these things. We're not in the Dark Ages, here.
Hold it right there. Now you're loading the question with the assumption that it would actually work, which isn't a given at all . (Actually, it's highly unlikely.) My wife has declared that she'd divorce me if I did so, so there's that to take into consideration.
I really think I wouldn't, but I'm open to the fact that I might snap under that sort of emotional duress. The instinct to preserve one's family runs deep and has led people to do completely disproportionate things in the past.
So we need to make such decisions ahead of time, with cool minds and clear heads - and codify them in laws and constitutions. People are rash, thoughtless creatures when they let their emotions take over.
Using the "they're coming for your family" ploy has been an eternal favorite of propagandists. It's not as if it's not pretty obvious where you're going with this, after all.
If your family had been kidnapped and they had 3 hours to live.
if you had an accomplish in custody and you knew to water board them was the only way to save your family, would you allow the accomplish to be water boarded in order to save your family
No. Absolutely not. Considering it would make me less likely to find my kidnapped family, why in the hell would I do something so downright stupid?
"As a rule, torture is not an effective method of extracting information from prisoners, most experts agree.
. . .
""Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true,"
. . .
"There's no such thing as "a little bit of torture," McCoy said of the "light" tactics that are preferred today. Detainees are just as likely to tell their interrogators whatever they want to hear under psychological distress as they are under physical distress, he said, a statement backed up by Sen. John McCain, who himself was tortured as an officer during the Vietnam War."
"In 2006, a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers set out to settle the matter. They sought to find the most effective interrogation tactics and advise the U.S. government on their use. Their conclusions, laid out in a 372-page report for the director of national intelligence, argued against harsh interrogation.
"“The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information,†former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col Steven M Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. “In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that ‘compliance’ carries the same connotation as ‘meaningful cooperation.’â€
"In short: Slam someone up against the wall, keep him awake for days, lock him naked in a cell and slap his face enough, and he will probably say something. That doesn’t necessarily make it true."
by Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005
"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."
"The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
. . .
The IG's report is among several indications that the Bush administration's use of abusive interrogation methods was less productive than some former administration officials have claimed.
Even some of those in the military who developed the techniques warned that the information they produced was "less reliable" than that gained by traditional psychological measures"
"Soufan said whenever they needed information about a “ticking bomb†situation, a good psychological interrogator can establish rapport with the imprisoned terrorists in hours. Water boarding, on the other hand, requires more than a dozen sessions and days of sleep deprivation to get any information from a prisoner, he said. And when they get it, the information can’t always be trusted."
Seriously, have you guys not figured this out yet??? Why would I want to risk my family's lives with this stunt? That would be the true definition of insane.
"As a rule, torture is not an effective method of extracting information from prisoners, most experts agree.
. . .
""Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true,"
. . .
"There's no such thing as "a little bit of torture," McCoy said of the "light" tactics that are preferred today. Detainees are just as likely to tell their interrogators whatever they want to hear under psychological distress as they are under physical distress, he said, a statement backed up by Sen. John McCain, who himself was tortured as an officer during the Vietnam War."
"In 2006, a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers set out to settle the matter. They sought to find the most effective interrogation tactics and advise the U.S. government on their use. Their conclusions, laid out in a 372-page report for the director of national intelligence, argued against harsh interrogation.
"“The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information,†former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col Steven M Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. “In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that ‘compliance’ carries the same connotation as ‘meaningful cooperation.’â€
"In short: Slam someone up against the wall, keep him awake for days, lock him naked in a cell and slap his face enough, and he will probably say something. That doesn’t necessarily make it true."
by Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005
"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."
"The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
. . .
The IG's report is among several indications that the Bush administration's use of abusive interrogation methods was less productive than some former administration officials have claimed.
Even some of those in the military who developed the techniques warned that the information they produced was "less reliable" than that gained by traditional psychological measures"
"Soufan said whenever they needed information about a “ticking bomb†situation, a good psychological interrogator can establish rapport with the imprisoned terrorists in hours. Water boarding, on the other hand, requires more than a dozen sessions and days of sleep deprivation to get any information from a prisoner, he said. And when they get it, the information can’t always be trusted."
Seriously, have you guys not figured this out yet??? Why would I want to risk my family's lives with this stunt? That would be the true definition of insane.
Thanks for answering so you go into the column you would let your family die rather than use wateboarding.
I should have done this a poll
No, it's a scenario based on a metric sh.tload of unproven assumptions, and you're disingenuous in asserting otherwise . But seeing as you seem to do best with one-sentence sentiments, I'll try to simplify. How about "I fervently hope not." That basic enough?
No, it's a scenario based on a metric sh.tload of unproven assumptions, and you're disingenuous in asserting otherwise . But seeing as you seem to do best with one-sentence sentiments, I'll try to simplify. How about "I fervently hope not." That basic enough?
So you will not answer still.
its a simple question
Thanks for answering so you go into the column you would let your family die rather than use wateboarding.
I should have done this a poll
I go into the column that I would rescue my family rather than letting them die by employing a technique known to elicit false and unreliable results that take days rather than hours to obtain.
Oh, and for the record, Dane_in_LA is my husband and he says he'd rather I do it my way than yours, too, if his life were on the line.
i believe in torture if its neccessary. i mean, its only apart of natural human reaction to want to get back at people who hurted your family,etc
but only if they deserve it like a child molestor and etc
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.
