Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, you don't appear to be condemning the use of torture, particularly when statements such as this give an altogether different impression.

Because it is a side issue to the effects of torture. That is the issue i've been discussing. Hell, even if i did think it was acceptable in some cases (i don't), that would make no difference to the factual innacuracies that i've been commenting upon.

I said i wasn't dealing with the moral aspects before on at least three occasions as well as why and i've stated categorically that it should not be used. If you didn't see the posts then it's not my fault.

 

[nino_savatte]

No. I don't.

Find an (in context) quote to that effect or withdraw it.

Now.

Ah, le retourne d'Inspecteur Con. Praytell what did you mean then when you said this in reply to my post?

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

I posted this, remember?

Originally Posted by nino_savatte
Quelle surprise, confessions made under torture are never reliable.

You're just hiding behind semantics, mon cher Inspecteur.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because it is a side issue to the effects of torture. That is the issue i've been discussing. Hell, even if i did think it was acceptable in some cases (i don't), that would make no difference to the factual innacuracies that i've been commenting upon.

I said i wasn't dealing with the moral aspects before on at least three occasions as well as why and i've stated categorically that it should not be used. If you didn't see the posts then it's not my fault.

What is this "side issue"? Either you condone the use of torture or you condemn it. Which is it?

If you didn't see the posts then it's not my fault.

You should try explaining yourself better. It's a little too convenient to try to deflect this onto me.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I posted this, remember?

Quelle surprise, confessions made under torture are never reliable.

They may not be reliable, but it does not mean they are always wrong/false. That's the point (it appears) DB was making.

You're just hiding behind semantics, mon cher Inspecteur.

That quote is pretty clear that it's about some, you are taking that to mean all. That's not fair.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What is this "side issue"? Either you condone the use of torture or you condemn it. Which is it?

You know i condemn it, so why try to imply that i condone it?

Morality is a side issue to the points i was making which were in reference to truth, reliability and so on.

 

[detective-boy]

You're just hiding behind semantics, mon cher Inspecteur.

You really are a faux intellectual prick, aren't you? You really are as stupid as you appear?

Go get a fucking dictionary and look up the words "lots"; "never" and "any". Get a grown-up to help if you haven't quite mastered the alphabet.

And then find a quote (in context) which shows I:

think that any confession given under torture is reliable.

Or fucking withdraw your allegation.

 

[nino_savatte]

You really are a faux intellectual prick, aren't you? You really are as stupid as you appear?

Go get a fucking dictionary and look up the words "lots"; "never" and "any". Get a grown-up to help if you haven't quite mastered the alphabet.

And then find a quote (in context) which shows I:



Or fucking withdraw your allegation.

"Faux intellectual prick", that's a good one coming from you, cunt. If anyone here is stupid, it's you; but being an [ex] cop, you still haven't gotten out of the habit of behaving like a total cunt - have you? I do tend to find that those people who dish out phrases like "faux intellectual" tend to have some sort of deep-seated intellectual insecurity. Is that you, Monsieur l' Inspecteur?

Go and wave your truncheon in someone else's face, arsehole. I stand by what I say: you have adopted a contradictory position...or do I really need to draw you a fucking picture?

 

[nino_savatte]

They may not be reliable, but it does not mean they are always wrong/false. That's the point (it appears) DB was making.


That quote is pretty clear that it's about some, you are taking that to mean all. That's not fair.

If the confessions/information is not reliable, then why employ torture? This is what I'm trying to get at.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If the confessions/information is not reliable, then why employ torture? This is what I'm trying to get at.

Because unreliable information can be confirmed through other means once you have it, because as long as you bear in mind the information may be unreliable it is far more useful than no information at all.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because unreliable information can be confirmed through other means once you have it, because as long as you bear in mind the information may be unreliable it is far more useful than no information at all.

Sorry to repeat this: but if the information gleaned from a torture session is unreliable, then why use it, other than for the sake of satisfying the sadistic desires of the torturers?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Sorry to repeat this: but if the information gleaned from a torture session is unreliable, then why use it, other than for the sake of sadism?

Because unreliable information can be confirmed through other means once you have it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because unreliable information can be confirmed through other means once you have it.

So why bother torturing in the first place? Sorry but it just doesn't make sense. The only real reason torture is still used is to satisfy the sadistic lust of the torturer.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So why bother torturing in the first place?

Once you have it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Once you have it.

Once you have what? The dodgy information? Isn't this just a waste of time? Only the the torturer is getting something out of this; no one else benefits.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Once you have what? The dodgy information? Isn't this just a waste of time? Only the the torturer is getting something out of this; no one else benefits.

Once you have the unreliable information. That information may be correct, ie. the guns are burried in the north west corner of field XYZ. Without the information it may be next to impossible to find the stash, with it confirmation and location of the stash would be simple. I can't believe you are unable to see this.

To say that only the torturer is getting anything out of this is nothing but blind predjudice.

 

[nino_savatte]

Once you have the unreliable information. That information may be correct, ie. the guns are burried in the north west corner of field XYZ.

Without the information it may be next to impossible to find the site, with it confirmation and location of the stash would be simple. I can't believe you are unable to see this.

On the other hand, if the information is incorrect and nothing is found, then they go back and torture that person again. What is the point?

To repeat: The only person who is satisified with any of this is the torturer.

To say that only the torturer is getting anything out of this is nothing but blind predjudice.

How is it "blind prejudice"? It's a fact, isn't it? Do you honestly think that those who torture do so because they, themselves, are under duress to conduct interviews in this way? Or that they are simply "doing their job" and are otherwise reluctant to commit acts of torture?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

On the other hand, if the information is incorrect and nothing is found, then they go back and torture that person again. What is the point?

To repeat: The only person who is satisified with any of this is the torturer.

Because they may eventually get the correct information. Because they don't know they will get the right information or not until they try. It's like saying that only a small percentage of rape cases get convictions, so why bother?

All it needs to be a valid method is for it to work sometimes, it doesn't have to be always. In the case of torture it can be effective in situations where nothing else is. You're flat out wrong.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because they may eventually get the correct information. Because they don't know they will get the right information or not until they try. It's like saying that only a small percentage of rape cases get convictions, so why bother?

All it needs to be a valid method is for it to work sometimes, it doesn't have to be always. In the case of torture it can be effective in situations where nothing else is.

"Eventually get the correct information"? So they can continue to torture someone indefinitely until such time as the tortured person expires or they get bored with torturing (unlikely).

You say that you are against the use of torture but continue to say things like this

In the case of torture it can be effective in situations where nothing else is.

This amounts to a defence of torture as an effective interrogation technique.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

"Eventually get the correct information"? So they can continue to torture someone indefinitely until such time as the tortured person expires or they get bored with torturing (unlikely).

You say that you are against the use of torture but continue to say things like this

This amounts to a defence of torture as an effective interrogation technique.

It is an effective interrogation techinque (as shown above) and avoiding using it means that you will not be able to get information that may be very useful (as per example above). That's not condoning it, that's just facing reality.

I belive that it's not acceptable on a moral basis and damn the consequences, i'm not stupid enough to think there are none.

 

[detective-boy]

...or do I really need to draw you a fucking picture?

It may help. You're probably better at drawing than at using/understanding language.

 

[nino_savatte]

It is an effective interrogation techinque (as shown above) and avoiding using it means that you will not be able to get information that may be very useful (as per example above). That's not condoning it, that's just facing reality.

I belive that it's not acceptable on a moral basis and damn the consequences, i'm not stupid enough to think there are none.

No, it is condoning it, albeit in a semi-tacit fashion.

"Facing reality" sounds a little like the auld phrase "common sense", which is something that 'we' possess but 'they' don't.

This is what rhys gethin said

Yes - It is exactly like the witch trials. There people 'confessed' to the weird sexual fantasies of the inquisitors and to doing all sorts of impossible things, like flying. 'Surely mere statistics means some of these were true?' asks our brainwashed chum. No - NOT A BLOODY ONE! THEY WERE ALL JUST INQUIITORS' BULLSHIT!

We have hundreds of years of the history of torture here and there are plentiful examples where people have confessed to almost anything. The US claims that it doesn't use torture but it outsources it to countries where the practice is commonplace. This is another example of the US's moral weakness in relation to inhumane forms of interrogation and imprisonment.

 

[detective-boy]

To say that only the torturer is getting anything out of this is nothing but blind predjudice.

No, to say that is also breathtaking stupidity ... you forgot that!

 

[nino_savatte]

It may help. You're probably better at drawing than at using/understanding language.

I can understand language, you just don't have the honesty to admit that you've caught yourself in a contradiction. You're a weasel; a spineless, gutless weasel.

Go fuck yourself...and while you're at it, get your boot off of my neck.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, to say that is also breathtaking stupidity ... you forgot that!

Ah, what arrogance. Like I said before: once a cop always a cop.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So you agree that it can be effective. You agree that it does generate information where you may not be able to get it in any other way. But you still say that it doesn't work?

Try to seperate moral indignation from logic on this one. You're letting your revulsion at the idea of it being useful cloud your judgement.

 

[nino_savatte]

So you agree that it can be effective. You agree that it does generate information where you may not be able to get it in any other way. But you still say that it doesn't work?

Try to seperate moral indignation from logic on this one. You're letting your revulsion at the idea of it being useful cloud your judgement.

It's easy to dismiss my position as emotive but if torture is so effective, then why isn't it applied elsewhere?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It's easy to dismiss my position as emotive but if torture is so effective, then why isn't it applied elsewhere?

Because it's morally and ethically unacceptable. (for all)

Because they torture ours, we torture theirs (for military)

Because you will eventually torture someone who is innocent (for general public)

 

[nino_savatte]

Because it's morally and ethically unacceptable. (for all)

Because they torture ours, we torture theirs (for military)

Because you will eventually torture someone who is innocent (for general public)

So because "they" do it, "we" have to do it too? No wonder we live in such a shite world. With that sort of logic on offer, it's only a matter of time till we do ourselves in.

So if an innocent gets tortured, what is the point to the process?

This is 2007, not 1007.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So because "they" do it, "we" have to do it too? No wonder we live in such a shite world. With that sort of logic on offer, it's only a matter of time till we do ourselves in.

So if an innocent gets tortured, what is the point to the process?

This is 2007, not 1007.

You asked, i answered, i did forget the techincal problems, apparently good torturers are hard to find. I do note you ignored the first point in it's entirety. Well done, can't have been easy.

What is the point to the process? Depends why you're interrogating someone doesn't it.

 

[nino_savatte]

You asked, i answered, i did forget the techincal problems, apparently good torturers are hard to find. I do note you ignored the first point in it's entirety. Well done, can't have been easy.

What is the point to the process? Depends why you're interrogating someone doesn't it.

This has the same level of equivalence as the argument in favour of capital punishment. Those who argue in its favour, aren't too concerned by the thought that an innocent could be executed. Their counter-argument tends to go thus" Well, mistakes happen". Tell that to the relatives of the deceased.