Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[ATM]

That's the black helicopter tin foil obfuscated answer. I'm talking about open dialog like most people have.

So let's talk openly with unobfuscated dialog. Theoretically, if a state goes to war because they were provoked--in other words, they didn't initiate the force, the other party did, and this state was just protecting itself from agression of another, does that state have the right to kill to protect its citizens? And if it has the right to kill to protect itself, does it also have the right to extract information from the enemy using unpleasant means?

States go to war because war is the health of the State. Citizens suffer the whims, deceptions and wars of the State.

You're not very good at this.

 

[ATM]

Are they citizens or not? If they've participated in evil against us, and they are not citizens, I don't see what difference the border makes. The terrorist that we had in custody that was supposed to have been on one of the planes on 9/11, should we have treated him as we would a citizen, just because he was inside our borders?

If you're going to keep casually bringing up 9/11, which we all know was a huge deception, I'd suggest you go take your proper beating in that thread.

 

[ATM]

Constitutionally, I'd also agree. Practically, I would not.

It's a matter of principle, not merely law or practicality.

 

[jamil]

States go to war because war is the health of the State. Citizens suffer the whims, deceptions and wars of the State.

You're not very good at this.

No. You're not very good at this. I'm playing it straight. You're obfuscating. Just have a normal conversation. I know you think it's your superior wit why people won't engage you. It's not. They're having a normal point-counterpoint discussion. But you obfuscate and dodge and redirect. That's the kind of conversation people don't want to have because it's dishonest.

if you want me to engage. Then have a normal conversation. You might find I actually agree with you on many points.

 

[jamil]

It's a matter of principle, not merely law or practicality.

Principle is subjective insofar as the people whho subscribe to them. Progressives believe in progressive principles, but those aren't principles I would subscribe to. Point is, just because they are your principles doesn't mean they are right in the absolute. They are just right to you and others who agree.

 

[ATM]

No. You're not very good at this. I'm playing it straight. You're obfuscating. Just have a normal conversation. I know you think it's your superior wit why people won't engage you. It's not. They're having a normal point-counterpoint discussion. But you obfuscate and dodge and redirect. That's the kind of conversation people don't want to have because it's dishonest.

if you want me to engage. Then have a normal conversation. You might find I actually agree with you on many points.

I know that you agree with me on many points, and you know that I'm not being dishonest.

So, how will you defend torturing people for information, the topic of this thread, if I don't let you steer me to chatter about something else?

 

[ATM]

Principle is subjective insofar as the people whho subscribe to them. Progressives believe in progressive principles, but those aren't principles I would subscribe to. Point is, just because they are your principles doesn't mean they are right in the absolute. They are just right to you and others who agree.

That's more nonsense chatter for another thread. How will you defend torturing people for information in this thread?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are they citizens or not? If they've participated in evil against us, and they are not citizens, I don't see what difference the border makes. The terrorist that we had in custody that was supposed to have been on one of the planes on 9/11, should we have treated him as we would a citizen, just because he was inside our borders?

You made a general statement about the state having an obligation to protect a citizen's rights, while having no obligation to the non-citizen. With the addition of "participating in evil against us," I have to ask if the obligation (or lack of) exists if no dubious action was taken against he state? That's why it's important to know idk you mean domestically or not.

 

[jamil]

That's more nonsense chatter for another thread. How will you defend torturing people for information in this thread?

I have the capacity to discuss multiple vectors of conversation. I see these "chatter" references as filibuster.

 

[ATM]

I have the capacity to discuss multiple vectors of conversation. I see these "chatter" references as filibuster.

You keep dodging and redirecting from one vector of conversation, defending torture to extract information. Get to it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You keep dodging and redirecting from one vector of conversation, defending torture to extract information. Get to it.

For the record, I think you have the right of it. It is immoral to employ force on someone who has already been, obviously, subjugated because he is unwilling to give up information one deems as important. If anything bad comes from that person withholding information, and it can be proven, at that point the person ca be held liable, within the confines of law.

 

[jamil]

You keep dodging and redirecting from one vector of conversation, defending torture to extract information. Get to it.

No. I have ADD. See. Here's how you do it. Someone posts something in a thread, and you see something in that post makes you think of something you want to say, so you post about that something. Meanwhile, the rest of the conversation is still happening. So there's no dodge. It's how conversation happens.

 

[jamil]

You made a general statement about the state having an obligation to protect a citizen's rights, while having no obligation to the non-citizen. With the addition of "participating in evil against us," I have to ask if the obligation (or lack of) exists if no dubious action was taken against he state? That's why it's important to know idk you mean domestically or not.

I guess I thought the Mohamed Atta reference would clear that up. So I think this might answer the question if I understand what you're asking. Atta is not a citizen. If Atta was in the US and no one attacked us, there would be no reason to interrogate him.

 

[HoughMade]

Exactly.

The authority to torture someone for information does not exist.

Yet it happens with no consequence and you, yourself, may have benefited. It's great to spout theory from the cheap seats, but there are people with the actual responsibility to try to prevent attacks.

Enjoy your theory and have fun with it!

 

[jamil]

For the record, I think you have the right of it. It is immoral to employ force on someone who has already been, obviously, subjugated because he is unwilling to give up information one deems as important. If anything bad comes from that person withholding information, and it can be proven, at that point the person ca be held liable, within the confines of law.

Here is why a logical argument can't be had on this subject. We can use logic to evaluate consistency. But we can't use it for an objective conclusion. This is a moral argument. And that makes it subjective.

I know that there's a distaste for separating the reference of "torture" into the lesser category of "enhanced interrogation". I'm fine with establishing degrees and placing a line where I am unwilling to go further. I'm fine with labeling lesser degrees of interrogation methods with less horrific labels. So for me, morally, no pulling fingernails to get information. But hell yes to exploiting the psyche of a muslim radical, who participated in planning terrorist acts against us, by making him listen to what he considers immoral music 24/7, to get information that will thwart further attacks. He brought the terror to us. He initiated the force.

 

[ATM]

Yet it happens with no consequence and you, yourself, may have benefited. It's great to spout theory from the cheap seats, but there are people with the actual responsibility to try to prevent attacks.

Enjoy your theory and have fun with it!

I am not willing or able to waive the consequences of an unprincipled crime (torture) simply because I might benefit in some practical way from the information extracted.

You may approve, but you have no authority to vest in anyone else to accomplish this crime on your behalf.

Enjoy your police state!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here is why a logical argument can't be had on this subject. We can use logic to evaluate consistency. But we can't use it for an objective conclusion. This is a moral argument. And that makes it subjective.

I know that there's a distaste for separating the reference of "torture" into the lesser category of "enhanced interrogation". I'm fine with establishing degrees and placing a line where I am unwilling to go further. I'm fine with labeling lesser degrees of interrogation methods with less horrific labels. So for me, morally, no pulling fingernails to get information. But hell yes to exploiting the psyche of a muslim radical, who participated in planning terrorist acts against us, by making him listen to what he considers immoral music 24/7, to get information that will thwart further attacks. He brought the terror to us. He initiated the force.

The idea of "natural rights," is subjective... and a sham.

 

[HoughMade]

I am not willing or able to waive the consequences of an unprincipled crime (torture) simply because I might benefit in some practical way from the information extracted.

You may approve, but you have no authority to vest in anyone else to accomplish this crime on your behalf.

Enjoy your police state!

You're free to believe what you want, obviously, but this is not a binary situation- freedom versus police state.

 

[ATM]

You're free to believe what you want, obviously, but this is not a binary situation- freedom versus police state.

Respond to your lack of authority to torture another for information, please.

If you don't possess such authority, how could you possibly vest it in another?

 

[HoughMade]

Respond to your lack of authority to torture another for information, please.

If you don't possess such authority, how could you possibly vest it in another?

What would you consider a source of authority?