BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)
-   -   Yeah, I know "plonk" (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103065-yeah-i-know-plonk.html)

KLC Lewis March 10th 09 04:36 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce


People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river. With others, the more pain you cause them the
more intransigent and unbreakable they become. Particularly if they feel
they are serving a higher cause, are somewhat masochistic anyway, and are
angry at being tortured by those whom they believe to be evil.

That being said, how can you distinguish between the varying degrees between
the extremes? And regardless of the "quality" of information one might
receive by torturing a prisoner, how does a Nation maintain the moral high
ground when it is willing to torture prisoners?

Win their hearts and minds -- and you cannot do that by force.



[email protected] March 10th 09 05:23 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
KLC Lewis wrote:
wrote in message
...
The particular action at hand is simply the same rationalization used by
despots since time immemorial. Namely, the ends justify the means.
Immoral acts, performed for moral ends, are justified. Using this method
of "reasoning", it is perfectly moral and ethical for a mother to, say,
kill and eat her parents if that is the only way to save herself and her 5
children. No problems with that right?


A very poor example. In fact, the mother would likely choose to aputate one
or two limbs from her parents, then smoke the meat until it becomes ham.
Neither parent would die, and they'd all eat well for a few weeks. To kill
both parents would be a total waste.


Hey! It's *my* example, and those children are *HUNGRY*! Besides, she's
no Sarah Palin, so the parents would just spoil if not properly dressed...

Keith

Stephen Trapani March 10th 09 05:35 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.
Sigh...went right over your head too, eh.

Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher,
eh.
The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as
to
whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply
observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure
doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question.

Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I
wouldn't
have to provide the Cliff Notes.
Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government.

The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave.

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.


I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,


These loony lefties can talk themselves into the wildest nonsense.
They're now saying that hurting or threatening to hurt people can't get
them to reveal what they know. As if somehow humans have evolved into
some other species, immune to fear of pain. Meanwhile, the current
policy of most armies nowadays is for prisoners to give up everything
they know instead of trying to withstand torture.

Oops! Did any of you lefties forget to cover your eyes? I hope none of
that sunk in! Heaven forbid you should have to come up with an actual
defense of your position!!

Stephen

Bruce In Bangkok March 10th 09 05:46 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.


Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.


In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.


Oh, I don't think so.

Crime confessions obtained by torture, where the primary proof of
guilt is the confession, doesn't make the info accurate. Only that you
punished somebody for a crime. That covers the Russian incident you
refer to...


No, I believe that it proves the point; that the Russians were able
through "torture", perhaps being sleep deprivation and starvation
combined with long interrogations, were able to "convince" people to
publicly confess to crimes that the individuals concerned must have
known would result in their execution.


As for the Nazis, well they may have caught some partisans by using
info gained by torture, but they did not eradicate the Resistance...
in fact the Resistance grew steadily. And in the end, who won


You are taking a rather long ranged view, perhaps far fetched. The
Germans were able to identify other members of a specific group, which
I suspect was their immediate aim.

So yeah, the evidence seems very strong that torture doesn't work....
thanks Bruce!

DSK


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce In Bangkok March 10th 09 06:22 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Oh, and your refutation of "torture" equating to "cruel"? Did I miss
that? Twist and squirm all you want Dave, the subject was "Torture",
irrespective of which techniques comprise that term. Stephen says he
sanctions "Torture", not just waterboarding, and that violates a
constitutional prohibition. Time to wake up and smell the 18th century.
Was that too many syllables for you?

Keith


Let's look at it this way:

The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either
cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not
unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like.

Winning hearts and minds, one at a time.


I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

[email protected] March 10th 09 11:07 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce


People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river.


Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great
detail.


[email protected] March 10th 09 11:10 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:35:51 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.
Sigh...went right over your head too, eh.

Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher,
eh.
The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as
to
whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply
observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure
doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question.

Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I
wouldn't
have to provide the Cliff Notes.
Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government.

The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave.
And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.


I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,


These loony lefties can talk themselves into the wildest nonsense.
They're now saying that hurting or threatening to hurt people can't get
them to reveal what they know.


Or, what they don't know!

Besides, most accredited terrorists have gone through extensive
training regarding torture. Being tortured is considered a golden
opportunity to send the enemy in the wrong direction or into a trap.


Richard Casady March 10th 09 02:14 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:38:36 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


You haven't seen the TV psycho drama?


No. Its called 24 I presume.

Casady

Richard Casady March 10th 09 02:24 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:49:41 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.


Two things. A less skillful interrogator will reveal what it is that
he wants to hear. He will then hear it for sure, whether it relates to
the truth or not. The other is that other methods work better. I read
a book relating the story of the best of the German POW interrogators.
He never even threatened harm, he was polite and pleasant, and got
something out of everyone foolish enough to converse at all, even on
seemingly innocent topics. The only ones that didn't reveal something
useful were the ones that clammed up completely.

Casady

Richard Casady March 10th 09 02:36 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On 9 Mar 2009 17:15:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government.


A gross distortion


You think we gave it the seal of approval when the Japanese did it to
POWs during WWII? Then it was definitely torture, at least all the
history books agreed on that.

Casady


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com