President Bush's Crusade Against Justice Continues..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd rather have a slightly higher chance of being blown up by terrorists than have my nation behave the way it is behaving at Gitmo and these CIA prisons.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that way the government has run Gitmo/the prisons has actually made us safer. We really can't know if it has, because we don't know what info was obtained and how much it helped, and further it's really hard to quantify the PR value (for Al-Q and its ilk) of something like Gitmo and the secret prisons.

I'd rather we take the high road when in doubt.

-Arrian

I tend to agree with the above. The McCain approach is right, and what Congress should pass. However the notion that what was done at Gitmo means we are no longer free, or that we've already lowered ourselves to the level of our adversaries is hyperbole. But then theres hyperbole on both sides.

In this case the right policy is to go BEYOND the narrowest reasonable reading of the Constitution or of Geneva. Both because ensuring our freedom requires a certain buffer between what we allow the govt to do, and what really represents a loss of freedom, and for the strategic hearts and minds issues Arrian raises.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd rather have a slightly higher chance of being blown up by terrorists than have my nation behave the way it is behaving at Gitmo and these CIA prisons.
-Arrian

So then, significatly higher casualties would make those things okay?

What is slightly higher to you? When do you draw the line and say enough is enough?

[LordShiva]

Scenario: Smuggled nuke in Manhattan, timer counting down, no way to stop it without the Disarm code. Terrorist who planted it is in custody, knows the Disarm code. Torture the hell out of him for it, or no?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Scenario: Smuggled nuke in Manhattan, timer counting down, no way to stop it without the Disarm code. Terrorist who planted it in custody knows the Disarm code. Torture the hell out of him for it, or no?

Imran: No
Arrian: Maybe
PLATO: Yes!

Sloww: Somebody gotta make a choice

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I say there's no choice, too. I also say that many people "want to have their cake and eat it too".
I'm saying, to remain moral, we'll take more casualties. I don't think that can be disproved.

And I don't think that can be proved. Seriously, what are you basing that opinion on?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

@ Lordshiva

I'm torn it is NYC home of the stinkin Rangers after all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO


Imran: No
Arrian: Maybe
PLATO: Yes!

Sloww: Somebody gotta make a choice

LOTM - the overuse of coercive interrogation techniques from 2001 to 2005, has made them less useable in a (dare i call it thus) LordShiva scenario, and so has made us less safe.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
LOTM - the overuse of coercive interrogation techniques from 2001 to 2005, has made them less useable in a (dare i call it thus) LordShiva scenario, and so has made us less safe.

"LordShiva scenario"

Why has the overuse made them less useable? Do you mean politically or operationally?

[Velociryx]

My answer to the Lord Shiva question: Offer the person with the information an opportunity to meet Allah firsthand.

Not via torture, but simply via sharing the fate he wishes to inflict on the rest. Drop him off at the bomb, tell him to disarm it. No way he can escape on foot in time, and more likely to succeed than beating the $hit out of him.

The failing in this case, is in letting the scenario progress this far. At the point of no return, options diminish. The test is in seeing that things never get this far. Once they do, there is little that can be done.

-=Vel=-

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


"LordShiva scenario"

Why has the overuse made them less useable? Do you mean politically or operationally?

Mainly politically, but perhaps operationally as well. If we had avoided all coercive techniques, or at least managed to confine them Gitmo-Secret prisons and not let them leak to Iraq (but probably it was inevitable theyd leak to Iraq once they became widespread at Gitmo) then when the LordShiva scenario takes place, there would be little hesitation to use Jack Bauer type methods. Now, there will be at least some hesitation, and even more so in a LordShiva lite scenario.

As for operationally, our adversary has proven quite able to learn. While they probably already have techniques for resisting physical torture, which they can expect to encounter in places like Egypt and Syria, I presume some of the techniques that have been publicized due to overuse were innovations.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


"LordShiva scenario"

Surely you know the following quote

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another."

Physicist Robert Oppenheimer - Supervising Scientist Manhattan Project

[Velociryx]

Alternate plan. Ask for one volunteer.

A single individual willing to die for his country.

Take the bomb away in a helicopter/plane/whathaveyou.

Per the scenario rules, we know where it is, we just don't know how to disarm it.

One of ours dies to save many, and he volunteers.

He also takes the terrorist with him for the (one way) ride, so that at any point, if he wishes, he can disarm the bomb and save them both.

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
My answer to the Lord Shiva question: Offer the person with the information an opportunity to meet Allah firsthand.

Not via torture, but simply via sharing the fate he wishes to inflict on the rest. Drop him off at the bomb, tell him to disarm it. No way he can escape on foot in time, and more likely to succeed than beating the $hit out of him.

-=Vel=-

Yeah, because those terrorist would never blow themselves up to get at us.

[SlowwHand]

Spoken like a terrorist, Velociryx. Congrats.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Alternate plan. Ask for one volunteer.

A single individual willing to die for his country.

Take the bomb away in a helicopter/plane/whathaveyou.

Per the scenario rules, we know where it is, we just don't know how to disarm it.

One of ours dies to save many, and he volunteers.

He also takes the terrorist with him for the (one way) ride, so that at any point, if he wishes, he can disarm the bomb and save them both.

-=Vel=-

So kill two people to keep from torturing one....that's a plan (as long as we kill the one we would never torture, right?)