Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#141
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#142
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#143
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#144
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
|
#145
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#146
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#147
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#148
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#149
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#150
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|