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 (229366)	5/1/2007 6:35:20 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Clearly we disagree on the "proper definition" of the ticking bomb. Whenever it is used- in examples, and on TV- the example is a bomb, still ticking, on it's way to hurt people. This bomb was turned around by its driver and exploded in his yard. Now I'm not saying he wouldn't know valuable information, but this is NOT the case of the ticking bomb. This is the case of the bumbling and/or ineffective suicide bomber (or mere truck bomber), who changed his mind, and had his bomb blow up accidentally. There's also no evidence anyone was tortured to extract the non-critical non-ticking bomb related info either (which "rolled up" the people who were in his cell- but who were not related to any ticking explosive materials). Right? "If it's a routine news item that torturing works in a ticking time bomb case- you ought to be able to find us one. You have been wrong about other things you stated as fact and then couldn't find..." I really don't know how you find yourself on point. But I will try to believe you do. I do not find you on point. At least we all know your definition of the ticking bomb case now. It doesn't actually need to be ticking, and it need not be endangering anyone.