Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (160487)	4/14/2005 3:17:06 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Have any of these folks ever answered this question? Ionesco just did with a resounding no. She doesnt care how many are killed as long as this nation's principles are not violated. I expect more from Ed than that. We shall see. Mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (160487)	4/14/2005 4:02:29 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, first, what extreme example? Second, with respect to: "I'll put the same question to you: You are holding the manager of a suicide bombing terrorist cell. You have information that he has just dispatched the truck bomb which will explode in your city, probably within a couple of hours. He knows where it is going. How do you question him?" I'm a pragmatist Nadine. I'd question him using whatever method I thought would be most efficient in garnering the truth quickly enough to do any good. Torture over two hours would probably only get me a lot of wrong leads that would tie up the very people I'd need to make the probably futile effort to save lives, but if I thought it could work I'd do it. (This assumes that I "know" that he's a terrorist and has dispatched the bomb.) Now, why not ask whether I'd approve of a national policy that endorsed the use of torture to question criminals, terrorists or others who present a risk of potentially serious harm to our people. I think that's a separate question that effects long term issues going to the very roots of civilized behavior and I'd have to say "no." You're bright and I think you'll be able to understand the distinction. Ed PS, In order to keep the main theme of my thoughts coherant, I never posted on the likely abuses and failures implicit in creating a torture industry. Ever notice the kind of people who gravitate toward such activities and how hard it is to control that sense of power that having control over the pain of another human being creates?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (160487)	4/14/2005 4:45:37 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'll put the same question to you: You are holding the manager of a suicide bombing terrorist cell. You have information that he has just dispatched the truck bomb which will explode in your city, probably within a couple of hours. He knows where it is going. How do you question him? It is tempting, very tempting, to reply to your hypothetical by quoting the first part of your post (You said, "You are using the same method. Jump to the most extreme example you can think of, then declare nobly that you would not use it. This is not argument, it is preening."). Very apt, I'd say. The truth is--you never get that scenario in real life. Only on TV or in movies. You often don't know if the guy in front of you really is a terrorist, and even if you do, you usually don't know what he/she knows or not. If it really is only a matter of a couple of hours, and the person in front of you really is a dedicated terrorist, the odds are pretty good that they will have a cover story to provide to you so that the bomb can go off before you get there. What I said to Michael in the previous post stands. Your indignation is unwarranted--you are the one using the "most extreme example" to justify your position, and then pretend that it applies to all cases. Not good.