1 out of 5 Republicans Agree: Rectally feeding suspected terrorists is a-ok!
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:46:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  1 out of 5 Republicans Agree: Rectally feeding suspected terrorists is a-ok!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: 1 out of 5 Republicans Agree: Rectally feeding suspected terrorists is a-ok!  (Read 6859 times)
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2014, 03:06:21 PM »

I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2014, 04:08:30 PM »

I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2014, 04:21:37 PM »

By what means do we already know of these peoples guilt? That certainly wasn't the case in practice, as 26 out of 119 of the CIA's prisoners were actually innocent. And this wasn't all about ticking time bombs. When the CIA took control of Abu Zubaydah, they promptly locked him up without human contact for 47 days and then water boarded him upwards of 80 times.

Don't pretend this is about ticking time bombs. Better yet, realize that the whole ticking time bomb paradigm is total nonsense cooked up to justify torture.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2014, 05:03:31 PM »

What scares me more is that 2 out of 5 Democrats think depriving someone of sleep is OK.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2014, 05:40:20 PM »

Only 1 out of 5?

I'm surprised.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2014, 05:51:14 PM »

I think this was done to inmates on hunger strikes
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2014, 06:40:57 PM »

I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2014, 06:57:30 PM »


Sleep deprivation, the standard method of interrogation used by the East German Stasi until 1989.

So, for a majority of Americans the methods used by the East German communist regime weren't wrong in itself, they were only used for the wrong end goal.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2014, 11:49:51 PM »

An aside -- Americans voted in people who, so far as I can tell, whole-heartedly believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as the suffering turns a profit. It's hard to see how economic and physical sadism could be well separated unless the question is who does the suffering. The Republican Party is the most right-wing party with a significant share of politicalpower within a Western democracy.

Authoritarian thinkers are cruel, ruthless, and reckless. They show fanatical loyalty to questionable objects of adoration.  If they are not the leaders or the brutal enforcers, they are the enablers -- the sorts who snitch upon dissidents as if such were the definition of patriotism.  


Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2014, 12:22:37 AM »

I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.

Can you describe the circumstances under which you would expect any of these tactics to elicit useful information? Can you point to any particular incident in which these methods did work or, failing that, would have worked?

I concede I'm not familiar with a particular incident.

Why wouldn't some of these tactics work? I'd assume most terrorists are strong willed individuals. If someone is withholding information on an attack, another terrorist, etc, it is vital to get the information through whichever means necessary. That individual may feel inclined to give up said information if they feel threatened, or feel that their family is in danger. Maybe being made uncomfortable long enough breaks their will. I wouldn't expect standard interrogation methods to work on these people.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2014, 10:21:22 AM »

Why don't you expect standard interrogations methods to work? Like, what actual hard data leads you to believe that? What experience do you have with interrogation?
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2014, 10:59:41 AM »


I didn't know you were an old. 
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2014, 01:07:53 PM »

I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.

Can you describe the circumstances under which you would expect any of these tactics to elicit useful information? Can you point to any particular incident in which these methods did work or, failing that, would have worked?

I concede I'm not familiar with a particular incident.

Why wouldn't some of these tactics work? I'd assume most terrorists are strong willed individuals. If someone is withholding information on an attack, another terrorist, etc, it is vital to get the information through whichever means necessary. That individual may feel inclined to give up said information if they feel threatened, or feel that their family is in danger. Maybe being made uncomfortable long enough breaks their will. I wouldn't expect standard interrogation methods to work on these people.

So you admit that your argument that torture is useful lacks empirical support? "Why not?" is reason enough for you?

To be fair, that Senate report also contained a few, comparatively unnoticed, references to the use of torture by the Pakistanis in the aftermath of 9/11, and suggested that that was in fact useful when it came to obtaining intelligence.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-14/senate-cia-report-makes-case-torture-worked-in-pakistan
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2014, 03:11:14 PM »

I think it's more disturbing that a majority of Democrats don't support any of the methods.

Why?

How are we supposed to interrogate effectively if we can't cause a minimal amount of discomfort for the detainees? A terrorist knows they aren't getting released, I doubt the good cop/bad cop routine is going to work on them.

What does it mean to "interrogate effectively"?

Interrogating in which ever way necessary to best get the information out of that particular individual.

What information does what you refer to as "discomfort" yield?

Whatever information they are withholding? I didn't say I agree with everything on the list. I just don't understand what's wrong with things like threatening their families as long as we don't actually act on it. We're trying to stop attacks, aren't we?

Are threats the only item on this list that you approve of?

It depends on the severity of the implementation, or the particular individual being interrogated. If we are certain of someone's guilt and are trying to gain information about an attack, I'm fine with any of the methods presented in this poll, save for the rectal one which is just inane.

OK. But this only brings us back to a stronger version of our previous question: What kind of information is gained if and only if we use these methods?

I don't really think about it in a broad sense. If an individual has information about an attack, we should use any means necessary to get them to talk. Different things might work for different individuals.

Can you describe the circumstances under which you would expect any of these tactics to elicit useful information? Can you point to any particular incident in which these methods did work or, failing that, would have worked?

I concede I'm not familiar with a particular incident.

Why wouldn't some of these tactics work? I'd assume most terrorists are strong willed individuals. If someone is withholding information on an attack, another terrorist, etc, it is vital to get the information through whichever means necessary. That individual may feel inclined to give up said information if they feel threatened, or feel that their family is in danger. Maybe being made uncomfortable long enough breaks their will. I wouldn't expect standard interrogation methods to work on these people.

So you admit that your argument that torture is useful lacks empirical support? "Why not?" is reason enough for you?

I'm not saying it should be the go to option. Just that if they feel one of these methods would be more effective on a particular individual, they should be able to use them.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 17, 2014, 03:12:59 PM »

But do you have any reason whatsoever to think that "these methods" actually work?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,834


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 17, 2014, 06:22:36 PM »

Here's a 2009 survey on the issue for comparison;

http://www.people-press.org/2009/04/23/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture/

There's some interesting comparisons by religion/age there too.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 17, 2014, 06:28:52 PM »

What scares me more is that 2 out of 5 Democrats think depriving someone of sleep is OK.

there is a strong sadism at the very core of the American soul.  there are a million ways to uncover it, and it's been uncovered many times, yet people remain surprised every time they hear.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 18, 2014, 02:08:11 AM »

I don't know whether a strong link between physical sadism toward criminal pariahs and economic sadism toward the economic pariahs has a clear link; I would expect one.

It will be up to Americans to reject a Party of Sadism in 2016 if such is shown of one of the two major Parties.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.