President Bush's Crusade Against Justice Continues..

[Velociryx]

Plato - yes...they do. They have. That's documented and goes without saying.

But as has already been pointed out, physical torture can be resisted...indefinitely, and certainly longer than we have remaining in the countdown.

Physical torture would be ineffective in this scenario, IMO, and even if it were, I would not advocate it (see the alternate plan).

Sloww - What is terroristic about my approach? I'm asking for a volunteer to be the hero. If no one volunteered, I would go myself. I am curious though, at your response.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

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?)


As opposed to beating the hell out of him, lowering outselves to the level of a sadistic b@stard, getting no info, and watching thousands die? Yes.

Absolutely.

Every time.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And to your second point...the power to save his life is, up until the last second, in his hands. If he chooses not to exercise his power, that's his bag. Nothing we can do about that, but as the bomb's planter, yes...he should be there. He's the only one who can disarm it, after all.

[MrFun]

I can say with confidence that our world is ****ed up more so now, than before.

[LordShiva]

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=-

But it's equipped with motion sensors that sets it off if it's moved. And the terrorist is quite willing to die (painlessly).

[PLATO]

Personally, I would advocate doing whatever it takes to save the 7-16 million people who might be in the New York area at any given time. If that means a gunshot in the kneecap of some crazed anti-american terrorist, then so be it!

Frankly, the idea that you would be willing to sacrifice millions of lives for the principle of not torturing a propsed mass murderer to prevent the mass murder is repugnant.

Human life has a great value...as great or greater than the rights of prisoners at least IMO.

Stop the bomb...whatever it takes.

[Velociryx]

If he's willing to die, he's willing to die. The (painlessly) proviso would not be known to us, thus, torture would be ineffective.

Besides, we might not be able to disarm the code, but I've little doubt we couldn't work up some fix or another to get around his crudely fashioned motion sensors.

But now you're changing the parameters of the scenario, so tell us more about the bomb. Where is it, exactly. What time of day? How much time left on the timer? What's the blast radius? Any special properties (chemical release, dirty nuke, etc).

All these things would factor into how it is dealt with, but none of the solutions involve torture.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Personally, I would advocate doing whatever it takes to save the 7-16 million people who might be in the New York area at any given time. If that means a gunshot in the kneecap of some crazed anti-american terrorist, then so be it!

Frankly, the idea that you would be willing to sacrifice millions of lives for the principle of not torturing a propsed mass murderer to prevent the mass murder is repugnant.

Human life has a great value...as great or greater than the rights of prisoners at least IMO.

Stop the bomb...whatever it takes.

There's no way that this single guy in the hypothetical scenario could have POSSIBLY brought in a bomb big enough to threaten 7-16 million people.

Now we're talking multiple warheads smuggled in from Russia or somewhere, and a whole team, massive organization and timing, etc.....that's far beyond the scope of the scenario so far....at least as I understand it.

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Just for fun, does any of the 'terrorist-enablers' here actually know the difference between the White House bill (which is supported by congress I might add) vs what the senate markup wants to do?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
There's no way that this single guy in the hypothetical scenario could have POSSIBLY brought in a bomb big enough to threaten 7-16 million people.

Now we're talking multiple warheads smuggled in from Russia or somewhere, and a whole team, massive organization and timing, etc.....that's far beyond the scope of the scenario so far....at least as I understand it.

-=Vel=-

Nuclear bomb Vel...and the night time pop of NYC is approx 7 million and daytime pop approx 16 million. Probably is actually more since it would likely take out part of Jersey across the river.

I do see those writer's instincts taking over as you extrapolate the scenario...woulod love to read a Vel book on the terrorist who had the change of heart and saved NYC.

Obviously a work of fiction though.

[Velociryx]

Nuke, yes...I got that....but if it's one guy, then we're prolly talking about a suitcase bomb. A dirty nuke...MAYBE with a blast radius of a couple blocks.

Even with high winds to scatter the radiation, it would, at worst, impact five or six blocks, and that's the nightmare scenario. 7-16 mil is off the charts for the type of operation that one guy could pull off...that's all I'm saying.

And I think that if properly prodded, said terrorist would be a bit less certain about the 70 virgins awaiting him...again, no terror mind you...just...a little heart to heart conversation as the ticker wound its way to zero.



-=Vel=-

[ajbera]

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 is in custody, knows the Disarm code. Torture the hell out of him for it, or no?

Reading this LordShiva scenario, it says nothing about knowing where the bomb is, just that it's in place and the clock is ticking. So, for the sake of simplifying the argument, say you don't know where it is either. The terrorist in custody knows its location and how to deactivate it, and you have a limited amount of time to extract this information.

I don't know what official national policy should be, but I do know that as an individual, if the terrorist were unwilling to divulge the info, I would torture him in the most painful way possible that still leaves him able to communicate, and do my best to get the info I need. And whether I was successful or not, afterward I would submit myself to the courts for justice, knowing full well that any incarceration or punishment or loss of reputation was well worth the chance to save millions of people.

Even if policy is adopted that makes physical coercion illegal, I expect individuals to do what they have to do to ensure the safety and survival of the nation, even if that means jail or worse for them.

You're right - sometimes sacrifices must be made.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by ajbera
Even if policy is adopted that makes physical coercion illegal, I expect individuals to do what they have to do to ensure the safety and survival of the nation, even if that means jail or worse for them.

You're right - sometimes sacrifices must be made.

I'd be okay with probation...given the circumstances.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by ajbera


Reading this LordShiva scenario, it says nothing about knowing where the bomb is, just that it's in place and the clock is ticking. So, for the sake of simplifying the argument, say you don't know where it is either. The terrorist in custody knows its location and how to deactivate it, and you have a limited amount of time to extract this information.

I don't know what official national policy should be, but I do know that as an individual, if the terrorist were unwilling to divulge the info, I would torture him in the most painful way possible that still leaves him able to communicate, and do my best to get the info I need. And whether I was successful or not, afterward I would submit myself to the courts for justice, knowing full well that any incarceration or punishment or loss of reputation was well worth the chance to save millions of people.

Even if policy is adopted that makes physical coercion illegal, I expect individuals to do what they have to do to ensure the safety and survival of the nation, even if that means jail or worse for them.

You're right - sometimes sacrifices must be made.

I believe thats referred to as the Jack Bauer answer to the LordShiva scenario. Whatever laws we pass, men of action will do what needs to be done, in extremis, so we might as well pass the laws.

and in this situation with you in the dock in front of a jury, you could expect much sympathy.

[Velociryx]

Sorry guys...I can't make that trip with you.

If it's okay to torture someone in an attempt to save a million lives, then is it okay to do it to save a hundred thousand?

10,000?

100?

2?

Where's the line? Do you want to be responsible for drawing that line?

It's never okay, and there are always options that do not include torturing the person you're trying to get information out of.

These options do typically require a little thinking outside the box, and a lot more planning, but that's a scant downside, really (tho admittedly, not something the folks wearing the brass knuckles are likely to consider, cos it's not their forte).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Those options also tend to make relatively poor TV, which is why Jack Bauer options invariably win out on both the big and small screens....

[Lord Avalon]

If you do torture - sorry, use "alternative interrogation methods" on - the terrorist, what makes you think any answer he gives would be the actual disarm code? Presumably, with the timer ticking down, that code would be used ASAP (especially if he resisted until there was little time left)? What if it's the detonate-now code?