Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
No. You're getting tortured right. So you ALWAYS lie ...Aldebaran said:
You're joking right?Yossarian said:
Why? Why is EVERYTHING EVERYONE EVER says under duress AWAYS inaccurate / wrong / a lie?Aldebaran said:
That is simply stupid.
"The guns are buried under the beach, 300m south of the lighthouse"Aldebaran said:
... guards go an dig up beach, 300m south of the lighthouse and find the guns (ETA: that they knew nothing of previously) ...
Er ... information confirmed ...
detective-boy said:No. You're getting tortured right. So you ALWAYS lie ...
I'm not joking, for the simple reason that as result of being tortured in no way my memory shall be trustworthy (let alone my ability to focus etc.. etc...) Even if what I confess to contains factual truth, it shall never give a reliable - let alone complete - picture. If unreliable and/or incomplete, it is by default a lie.
salaam.
JoePolitix
Gone
If a "confession" is extracted under torture that obviously seriously impairs its validity. Its also morally disgusting - right DB?
detective-boy said:"The guns are buried under the beach, 300m south of the lighthouse"
... guards go an dig up beach, 300m south of the lighthouse and find the guns ...
Er ... information confirmed ...
Which the confesser could have heard about from someone else, just like the interrogator did, and who possibly suggested the "knowledge" to the suspect.
salaam.
But surely if we threaten them in any way, anything they say will be untrue by definition ...rocketman said:
You are mixing up several concepts.Aldebaran said:
The "truth" is an absolute. It is what is, it is what happened.
A witness may or may not know the "truth" because our perception of things, and our memory of things is less than perfect.
A willing witness, telling their honest recollection, will usually be pretty close to providing the "truth" or, at least, their honest perception of it.
An unwilling witness, making something up, will be telling a lie. That lie will usually not be the truth or, at least, not their honest perception of it.
A tortured witness may or may not provide honest recollection or lies.
And "evidence" is a judicial concept which amounts to an account admitted into judicial proceedings. Something admitted as evidence may, or may not be the "truth".
No. YOU ask anyone. I'll put a lot of money on the fact that most of them, if they told anything, told at least some things which were true so far as they were aware. If EVRYTHING, uttered by EVERYONE, ALWAYS was lies there is no way the torturers would still be torturing ...Aldebaran said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:The fact that lots of stuff extracted by torture is independently verifiable |(e.g. the code IS what the person says it is; the forces ARE where the person says they are; the weapons ARE where the person says they are) and that has been seen repeatedly over the years which is why the military like to use it.
And common sense. Are you REALLY suggesting that every tortured person only ever tells lies?
Accuracy and reliability are different, unrelated concepts.
Once a policeman, always a policeman. How about you? Do you think you'd crack under torture? Och, a policeman would never find himself on the receiving end of the torturer's attentions though...silly me!
This sums up the thrust of your argument.
And common sense. Are you REALLY suggesting that every tortured person only ever tells lies?
I suppose you have a monopoly on "common sense" too, huh?
Are you suggesting that every tortured person has never made up anything in order to get the pain to stop? Are you also seriously suggesting that some of the more fanciful claims of KSM are to be taken seriously?
He probably stole my lunch money when I was a kid too.
I'm not sure why you say it can't be knowledge? A person being tortured can choose to speak of something they know, surely?laptop said:
And you, in your righteousness, miss the blatantly bleeding obvious ...oake said:
Do you REALLY mean that EVERYTHING said by someone being tortured has been provided to the by their torturers ...
Unreliable, yes. No-one is saying anything else.Aldebaran said:
Treated as if it were untrue, maybe (but I am sure there are lots of examples where interrogators have acted on information obtained by torture believing it to be true).
BUT NOT NECESSARILY NOT TRUE IN REALITY.
They. Are. Different. Concepts.
If everything was, as a matter of fact, fals why would anyone have to consider it as if it were false ...
Is that the ONLY tactic used in interrogation then ...rhys gethin said:
Except the truth, of course. No-one would ever consider telling the truth to make it stop. Never. Ever. In a million years. Aldebaran says so.rocketman said:
detective-boy said:
OK. Let's take a pragmatic position. Some of what he said may be untrue, forced out of him through coercion. Some may be true, also forced out through coercion.
We don't know what actually happened, and from our position have no way of knowing what the actual facts are, as this has not been tried in a public court.
The only information we have on this is that which has been distributed by the US - strangely, this information came through at the same time as thousands of anti-war protestors converge on Washington.
Given the current US administration's cynicism, we'd be mugs to simply buy the story as is, as we know the US lies. We also know that nothing will polarise US pro/anti war opinion so much as a big deal story involving 9/11.
So we can see some cynicism in the timing of this news.
These facts should be presented and explored in an open court, not a closed one, and in order to truly occupy a moral high ground, surely our allies shouldn't use torture? And surely our elected representatives shouldn't be complicit in torturing (by allowing CIA prisoner flights through our air space, for example), as that implicates each one of us in the act.
No, we should have nothing to do with any torture. Torture is prohibited internationally by every treaty.rocketman said:
I think there is a debate to be had about where "torture" starts in terms of war situations - the civilian, crime-related definition of torture and oppression (which, in the UK, goes right down to shouting at people a bit) may be viable for those circumstances but some more robust interrogation techniques could be justified in times of war. But the line should be drawn way short of some of the things which appear to be being conducted by the Americans.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
We are. However you and possibly a few others don't seem to be able to separate the issues. Possibly an admirable trait as a person but it does make a lot of your posts irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe it's time to revisit the moral aspect. (Insert shrug here)rocketman said:
detective-boy said:
I agree to an extent with this.
My real concern here is that this war is not so much against any sovereign de facto state, as against a collection of beliefs. I have always objected to this particular 'war' against 'terrorism' as it's too all-encompassing, and leads to what I see as the creation of a system of thought crime. It's a use of state power against a certain belief on an international basis, regardless of borders, nationality, human rights, or even actual proof of guilt (just look at some of the folk released from Guantanamo).
Now, the beliefs these terrorist hold may be repellent, but there are many repellent beliefs in this world. One repellent belief would be to condone the use of torture.
It's a maze of a discussion, really, too many wrongs in it, so little that's right.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Which ones are those? That he planned how to assassinate several US presidents? Why is that so outrageous? It's been done before by amateurs, why wouldn't a terrorist organisation examine the possibility?nino_savatte said:
Or were there some really far out ones?
It depends what you mean by "validity". If you mean reliability then that is clearly right. If you mean "accuracy" or "truth" that does not necessarily follow. And torture is immoral and internationally illegal (though, as I have already posted, there is room for a discussion as to when robust interviewing tactics end and "torture" begins).JoePolitix said:
Having realised you would say that I attempted to add that the interrogators did not know anything about it previously, but you were too quick with your bullshit response.Aldebaran said:
If the interrogators had knonw nothing about the guns or the hiding place previously, the finding of them based on the information provided WOULD be proof of the accuracy / truth of the confession. Wouldn't it? (Unless, of course, you say it could just have been a happy bloody coincidence that the prisoner made up a spot which just happend to have some guns buried there ... )
No. I'm not. You bigoted fucking moron.nino_savatte said:
But you and the other fuckwits seem to be suggesting that no person has ever told the truth when being tortured. I really have trouble understanding the apparent stupidity of people posting here sometimes. Give them an emotional / controversial subject and they lose all powers or fucking reason.
That is EXACTLY what I have been arguing from the outset. Some of what someone under totrture says may be true, some may be false.rocketman said:
The ONLY argument I have been having is with the fuckwits like Aldebaran and nino_savette who seem to think no-one under torture EVER uttered a single true word.
Maybe you'd like to argue with them seeing as you clearly agree with my position. Maybe they'll feel able to agree with you whereas they (as many) have a pathologiocal inability to agree with anything I say because I was a pig.
Similar threads
