And that is great but you are letting your heart eat your brain, are you honestly telling me that if you saw two Middle Eastern men set their backpack down upon a parade route like what happened in Boston, you would not alert the police?
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Terrorists, What Rights Should They Have?
- Thread starter Murder Doll
- Start date
And that is great but you are letting your heart eat your brain, are you honestly telling me that if you saw two Middle Eastern men set their backpack down upon a parade route like what happened in Boston, you would not alert the police?
No, I wouldnt. Simply setting a back pack down is no reason to do anything.
Now, if the situation was slightly altered, and they walked away from said back pack, then there would be concern. Simply putting something down isnt a crime, nor will it ever be one.
Not really, unless I saw an armed weapon.
EDIT: Why do I keep getting negative reps for an unnecessary reason?
Last edited:
Alright lets change the situation, they sit the backpack down and walk away to get a quick coffee, would that be worthy? Not to mention they could clearly wait with the backpack till the time the bomb is about to go off and then move away, or even be a suicide bomber.
As we saw in Boston, the armed weapon IS in the backpack.
I'm fully aware they can, perhaps if they didn't spend time and money training people the in's and out's or barbaric torture and used those resources elsewhere the credible information they gather would be more complete.
Living a life from day to day of being tortured, suffering from Malnutrition and having no future to look forward to isn't my idea of life. Id rather be put out of my misery personally.
WizardTrubbish
much more beastly
Ignoring how disgusting and inhumane torture is, there's no real reason to practice torture. It's not at all an effective way of gathering information, and could in fact be counter productive.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...ow-torture-may-inhibit-accurate-co-2009-09-21
http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...ow-torture-may-inhibit-accurate-co-2009-09-21
Last edited:
" The report also describes such intense interrogation as a possible case of classical conditioning. If a suspect under interrogation is being repeatedly waterboarded, for example, when they are not talking, the detainee will likely come to associate talking—whether it is giving accurate or incorrect information—with safety and will be inclined to talk more (if not more truthfully). Likewise, "when the captive is talking, the captor's objective has been obtained," the authors note. Thus, the coercive techniques may encourage talking from both sides, but, as the researchers explain in the paper, "torture is as likely to elicit false as well as true information." "
Problem with that is the belief that the captors will take something at face value, usually there tends to be a guideline, something that the captors know and the terrorist doesn't that when the terrorist gives up, is a good indication that he has broken.
You are making a false equivalency by suggesting that one set of training takes away from another.
Where did "suffering from malnutrition" come from? And I am sure "at that moment" you would want to be put out of your misery, but what about 5 or 10 years down the line, when you have given the information and live rather comfortably as many terrorist in GITMO now do.
Problem with that is the belief that the captors will take something at face value, usually there tends to be a guideline, something that the captors know and the terrorist doesn't that when the terrorist gives up, is a good indication that he has broken.
You are making a false equivalency by suggesting that one set of training takes away from another.
Where did "suffering from malnutrition" come from? And I am sure "at that moment" you would want to be put out of your misery, but what about 5 or 10 years down the line, when you have given the information and live rather comfortably as many terrorist in GITMO now do.
Last edited:
so you don't think that spreading out your resources on more training, facilities etc takes away from the productivity of other areas?
Well they're in there for one reason, to extract information out of them, i doubt they are feeding them balanced diets. Assuming they survive the rigorous torture without losing their mental competence.
I don't think with a endless checkbook as the CIA has, that they need to worry about one thing or another getting funding.
Why wouldn't they feed them balanced diets? They want them to survive as long as possible to maintain as a possible resource. I mean look at KSM, after he broke he became almost a teacher on al Qaeda to the CIA.
nothing is endless, especially if the expenses aren't getting solid results.
They'll give them enough to keep them well alive, they would want them to suffer though to get results quickly. I didn't know that.
I wouldn't say they are not getting solid results, the two they have waterboarded have practically wrote the book on al Qaeda afterwards, and were even part of the operation to get Osama Bin Laden.
Yes through sleep deprevation and other techniques that have already been listed by the press, I don't seem to remember starving as one of them.
out of how many? they're not exactly openly admit to the ones they haven't got results for.
I never claimed they would be starved, just that they wouldn't live life comfortably, diet would also be a part of that. You don't torture someone then give them a nice cooked meal.
Edit: Waterboarding was used on two terrorists, KSM and Abu Zubaydah, mind you that doesn't mean other EITs were used on other terrorists, just waterboarding in particular wasnt used on them.
You claimed they were malnourished, that is far different than claiming they did not give comfortable food.
I'm sure there were many methods used on all of them, none of them particularly nice.
I did, but Malnourished is also different from being starved. They wouldn't be in any danger of dying from starvation but the malnourishment would affect their ability to recover completely and think straight. Either way it's not a pleasant way to spend '5 - 10 years'.
They are mass murderers I doubt anyone cares if people were nice to them or not.
It isn't but it is better than being dead, and again you have no proof any of the terrorists were malnourished.
People clearly do since it's always a topic up for discussion and it made up part of the reason why waterboarding was banned.
That depends on who you ask, some don't agree that's why they take their life with pills etc rather than suffer years of torture.
And those people make up a very tiny minority.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/04/08/poll-results-torture/
In which case they are looking for a short term solution to a problem that can be solved in the long term. Mind you many terrorists may wish to die so that they don't spill information and jeopardize operations in progress as well.
I'll concede, there are a multitude of reasons and information is probably at the top of their list. I believe not being endured through years of suffering, regardless of how 'cushy' their life will be after 5,10,15 years, is high on the detainee's priority list.
Last edited:
That's not an "old saying". It was a quote from former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. And his career was less than stellar.
What? You surprised I'm speaking out against a Democrat? Clark took things too far. He once said that the War on Terrorism was a War on Islam. He formed a committee whose goal was to impeach Bush and Cheney. (He had as much evidence of actual wrongdoing as the Tea Party has against Mr. Obama - zero.)
And most terrorists are not freedom fighters. In fact, they rarely have real goals at all. Some experts, such as Max Abrahms, have seriously argued that the term "terrorist without a cause" can be applied to most or all terrorists. It's remarkably common for a terrorist group's policy demands to contradict each other, or to change suddenly for no apparent reason - in particular, if the group's demands are actually met, they almost never disband, but instead switch to a new issue that may be completely unrelated. In several cases, leaders of major terrorist organizations have been unable to explain exactly what they're fighting for when directly asked. So why do people join terrorist groups, if it's not really about the cause? Apparently because they're looking to make friends. No, really. They consider it a "club" of some sort.
One could argue that the reason these groups are so wildly self-contradictory is because the leaders recruit people using little more than cultural prejudices and peer pressure to ensure that they'll be too fanatical to bother questioning their orders or listen to an outsider. End result: a handful of men can raise an army of servants ready to do whatever they're asked simply to fit in. It's like a grand, horrifying version of high school cliques.
Add in the fact that's its a whole lot easier to blame others and kill them than it is to actually run a country and keep your citizens from throwing you out. Terrorism is easier than running for political office or going to school and learning political science. Its taking the easy way out.
In the end, one thing drives the core of a group of terrorists: Chaos.