What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[protectionist]

You'll have to be a little more specific than some pilot who fire bombed some city.

 

[protectionist]

I doubt someone who would kill that many people would care that much about his or her own life.

Torture does work sometimes, but a lot of the time it doesn't.

If the person who does the interrogating is given a wrong answer and believes it, it doesn't work.

A person being tortured may give a false answer and even confess to something they didn't do to stop the torture.

A person being tortured may not possess the information the torturer wants.

All this was already covered earlier in the thread. Please read thread before posting.

See the OP and Post # 49.

 

[protectionist]

"If the person who does the interrogating is given a wrong answer and believes it, it doesn't work."

In the scenario we're speaking of you would be able to confirm the truth to his confession in short order and the torture would continue.
Again though nothing is fool proof. But your best bet to get info in short order is going to be torture.
Of course in this situation you would explain to the enemy combatant that if the nuke goes off say good by to a half dozen muslim cities across the middle east.

Good idea. Make it a full dozen (whether you actually intend to carry out the threat or not)

 

[protectionist]

So wearing a uniform exempts you from war crimes?

Torture is an insult to humanity. A uniform is not a shield

This is not a TOPIC about what torture is. It is about the weights in a balance scale. On one side, an interogatee's rights, and the other, the lives of millions of Americans.

How many times have I counseled you about WHAT THE TOPIC IS in this thread ? How many times should you be allowed to break the USMB rule on off topic posting, before you get reported for it ?

Site Wide Rules And Guidelines:

"Off-topic posts may be edited, trashed, deleted, or moved to an appropriate forum as per administrator & moderator discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub forum."

 

[SavannahMann]

No.

First, as what was clearly demonstrated with Allan West, the person being tortured will tell you anything to stop the torture. So any information you got would be at best suspect, and at worst, a misdirection. Then what do you do? You’ve wasted hours, and you’re no closer to the bomb than you were. Now what? Do you return and continue torturing them?

In the Army, when I was going through training regarding being captured, we were told that if we could hold out for 24 hours, then any information we had was obsolete. As soldiers we did not have strategic information, only tactical. That information was already history by the time we would be broken.

Now, your scenario is asinine. First if you did capture a terrorist who had planted a bomb, the last thing he is going to tell you is that he planted a bomb. Stop pretending that they are dumb, or that they haven’t spent weeks or months training for this day.

9-11 should have taught you that. If not the Boston Marathon bombings would have proven the point. Pfui. They aren’t going to stop because you try and frighten them.

Finally, man portable nukes have timers. But nobody thinks the timers really work. If a target is important enough to warrant the use of a nuke, it is too important to allow someone to discover the bomb and deactivate it. The bomb would go off when the timer was activated.

You must have a reading comprehension deficiency.

Your answer (NO) does not correlate with what you said. Again the question was > Would you allow millions of people to die in a nuclear explosion ? By answering "No" that means you would choose to torture the terrorist.

Then you go on to say everything that contradicts your answer to the question, speaking against torturing the terrorist.

That being said, you also show you haven't read the thread. I already answered your question ("Then what do you do? Now what? Do you return and continue torturing them? "). Now I have to go through the work of going back and digging out the answer, and copy/pasting it for you, or typing it all over again, because you're too lazy to read the thread, and instead pop in here late, and ignorant of what's been covered already.

1. In Post # 49, I said this >> "EARTH TO DRL: I promise you that if the terrorist was lowered bare feet first into an electric wood chipper, he will do some real fast talking. And if he's wrong, he'll be back in that wood chipper again, while told this time, it'll be his whole legs. My money is he tells the truth."

"And even in worst case scenario. Suppose the (very unlikely) event that he doesn't tell the truth. >> You're willing to gamble the lives of millions of Americans, to preserve the rights of one terrorist ? There's another question for you. YES or NO."
​

2. I was in the Army too. The Army experience does not correlate with this scenario.

3. I said nothing about the terrorist being interrogated, being the bomb planter. The OP says ANOTHER person is the bomb planter, but the interrogatee knows who and where the bomb planter is.

4. How long the terrorist spent training is not relevant. However, you may think the scenario I presented is, it IS the scenario. Timers and other stuff you're bringing into this, are not the scenario. You are twisting the GIVEN scenario conditions of the OP, into other scenarios. This is a hypothetical case that is to be assessed as it is stated , not how you, or anyone else, reinvents it, into something else. The idea is to see how far some people will go to preserve a basic right of just one person (a terrorist no less), while how much they would allow national security to be breached, not whether this might actually happen or not, which is another subject/topic that you are changing it into. Start your own thread.

5. Please read the OP (slowly), and the thread posts, before posting.

Pfui. I’m adding reality into the situation. That is what is pissing you off. First, your asinine scenario is Hollywood bullshit to begin with. Lowering him into a wood chipper feet first? Go ahead. He will bleed to death and be dead in minutes. Dumbass.

You see, for your scenario to be realistic, we have to ignore logic, truth, and even the bleed rate of a wounded man. We have to believe that Hollywood bullshit where the hero saves the day with a second left on the clock is the truth.

Pfui. I would not torture the man. Now go on back to watching reruns of 24 or whatever gave you this nonsensical idea.

 

[SavannahMann]

So wearing a uniform exempts you from war crimes?

Torture is an insult to humanity. A uniform is not a shield

This is not a TOPIC about what torture is. It is about the weights in a balance scale. On one side, an interogatee's rights, and the other, the lives of millions of Americans.

How many times have I counseled you about WHAT THE TOPIC IS in this thread ? How many times should you be allowed to break the USMB rule on off topic posting, before you get reported for it ?

Site Wide Rules And Guidelines:

"Off-topic posts may be edited, trashed, deleted, or moved to an appropriate forum as per administrator & moderator discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub forum."

Well Mr. Wannabe Moderator. The responses can follow various threads. It happens all the time. If you don’t like it, then go and start your own message board where people are forced to answer how right you are. Otherwise, learn to live with it.

 

[protectionist]

Um. I’ve read it. If a person does not fall under the protections as a legal combatant, then they are entitled to judicial action of the host country. In fact, all of this was settled not that long ago when the United States decided that the people they were capturing were unlawful combatants.

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners were entitled to lawyers, and a proper jury trial. Oddly enough, there was no evidence against those people once that decision was made. Because some jackass like you decided that they could rough up the people, and deny them the rights of a prisoner of war since they weren’t.

All the evidence gathered was thus inadmissible. You can’t use it in a trial, and you can’t use a military tribuneral to render judgement. So once you start torturing the guy, you are left with two choices. Either commit murder, which the last time I checked was illegal. Or turn them loose. Which is what we’ve been doing since the Supreme Court ruled that we couldn’t try them with some half assed are they guilty yet nonsense.

Good move, and nicely done. If we had left them in the country where we had captured them, they could have been tried there. If we had given them their rights once they set foot on US soil, which Guantanamo was and is, then we could have tried them here. Instead, we get to turn them loose. I suppose this is the part where I am supposed to laugh at you, but hey, it’s too stupid to laugh at.

The legality of torturing the interogatee, was already covered in the OP (Title 18 of US Code, Section2304A). I stipulated it was illegal.. So what ? Nevertheless, the question of the OP remains. What the OP is asking >> The rights of one interogatee, or the lives of millons of people ? THAT is the question of this thread, and THE ONLY question.

 

[K9Buck]

Liberals like to pretend otherwise, but they'd be the first to start pulling fingernails if someone stole their cat.

 

[protectionist]

We have created a class of a man without a country
Where it is convenient to treat them as enemy combatants, we do so.
When it is convenient to treat them as criminals, we do so

Meanwhile, there are no charges, no trials
Just unlawful confinement

Let's put it this way. If you are a soldier in a war, you fight WHOEVER IS FIGHTING YOU. >> Whether they're wearing a uniform, a badge, a suit, or hot pants.

When I was in the Army National Guard, a reporter asked my battalion commander, Lt Colonel Shea, "How do you handle your enemies ?" The colonel replied >> "In the Army, how we deal with our enemies is very simple. It can be summed up in 3 words. WE KILL THEM."

 

[Markle]

Yes!

Absolutely nothing should be off the table. Our enemies should never know what we will or will not do.

 

[protectionist]

Really? You have a link for that? Because the Geneva Convention doesn’t actually say that. The Laws of war in fact, do not say that. In fact, the Military Tribunerals Act only authorized the detention of “illegal combatants” not the summary execution.

So where did you get this idea? I’m sure you have a link to the appropriate section of the Geneva Conventions. Article 30 of The Hague Conventions (1907) says that the person can be declared a spy only after a trial, which means that you can’t really shoot them on the battlefield. But I’m sure you have something other than a comic book to back up your assertions.

You can, and should, and must shoot anybody on a battlefield who is a threat to you and your troops. The Geneva Convention, The Hague Conventions, and whatever other internationalist documents there are floating around, can make birdcage linings. This is the USA. We don't defer to globalists and their demands.

 

[protectionist]

Pfui. I’m adding reality into the situation. That is what is pissing you off. First, your asinine scenario is Hollywood bullshit to begin with. Lowering him into a wood chipper feet first? Go ahead. He will bleed to death and be dead in minutes. Dumbass.

You see, for your scenario to be realistic, we have to ignore logic, truth, and even the bleed rate of a wounded man. We have to believe that Hollywood bullshit where the hero saves the day with a second left on the clock is the truth.

Pfui. I would not torture the man. Now go on back to watching reruns of 24 or whatever gave you this nonsensical idea.

Well, that's just my point. DON'T ADD. If you want to ADD (ie, change), go start your own thread. We don't need your conception of reality (and that's all it is) No, the OP scenario is not unrealistic at all. Lots of scenarios are possible, this being one among many. You're just trying to feed your warped ego, and be a big man in this thread, and show everybody how insightful you are. You come off looking like an overegotistical dunce.

So now you finally have said something that actually addresses the TOPIC. You would not torture the man. You would choose letting millions of people die rather than employ some method (whatever it may be) of obtaining such information that could stop the bombing.

This thread doesn't need posters. It needs psychiatrists.

 

[protectionist]

Well Mr. Wannabe Moderator. The responses can follow various threads. It happens all the time. If you don’t like it, then go and start your own message board where people are forced to answer how right you are. Otherwise, learn to live with it.

NO, YOU learn to live with the rules of THIS message board. And if you don't like them you can get the hell out.

 

[SavannahMann]

Pfui. I’m adding reality into the situation. That is what is pissing you off. First, your asinine scenario is Hollywood bullshit to begin with. Lowering him into a wood chipper feet first? Go ahead. He will bleed to death and be dead in minutes. Dumbass.

You see, for your scenario to be realistic, we have to ignore logic, truth, and even the bleed rate of a wounded man. We have to believe that Hollywood bullshit where the hero saves the day with a second left on the clock is the truth.

Pfui. I would not torture the man. Now go on back to watching reruns of 24 or whatever gave you this nonsensical idea.

Well, that's just my point. DON'T ADD. If you want to ADD (ie, change), go start your own thread. We don't need your conception of reality (and that's all it is) No, the OP scenario is not unrealistic at all. Lots of scenarios are possible, this being one among many. You're just trying to feed your warped ego, and be a big man in this thread, and show everybody how insightful you are. You come off looking like an overegotistical dunce.

So now you finally have said something that actually addresses the TOPIC. You would not torture the man. You would choose letting millions of people die rather than employ some method (whatever it may be) of obtaining such information that could stop the bombing.

This thread doesn't need posters. It needs psychiatrists.

You want to know how to get the information? It’s a lot easier than finding a wood chipper and someone who could have their feet removed and somehow not bleed to death. Idiot.

It would take perhaps an hour. But the idea obviously never occurred to you, since you prove the truth of what I was taught years ago. The reason to torture is not to get information, you get inaccurate information, the reason to torture is the one doing the torture, gets his rocks off hurting helpless people.

Want to save those lives? It’s called immunity. You can have it in one hour. Leaving you twenty three hours to locate the bomb, and stop it from going off. Toss in some money, why not? Hell throw in a weekend in Vegas with a dozen hookers for the bastard. It would still be cheaper than the damages from the bomb. But no, you just want to break out the wood chipper. Dunce.

You let one guy go, and you save millions of lives. But that idea never occurred to you. Nah, you just want to break out the pliers and start removing fingernails. I can only guess the idea of torturing someone appeals to you.

That’s the problem with all the ticking time bomb scenarios. Torture is literally the worst answer in every single one of them. But small minds will come up with stupid answers.

One jackass gets away, perhaps into witness protection. You save millions of lives, countless trillions of dollars in property, and you save the day. Instead, you demand that anyone who doesn’t go with the least reliable method of getting information is cold and callous and doesn’t care about the innocents. Fool.

 

[Gracie]

No.

 

[SavannahMann]

Really? You have a link for that? Because the Geneva Convention doesn’t actually say that. The Laws of war in fact, do not say that. In fact, the Military Tribunerals Act only authorized the detention of “illegal combatants” not the summary execution.

So where did you get this idea? I’m sure you have a link to the appropriate section of the Geneva Conventions. Article 30 of The Hague Conventions (1907) says that the person can be declared a spy only after a trial, which means that you can’t really shoot them on the battlefield. But I’m sure you have something other than a comic book to back up your assertions.

You can, and should, and must shoot anybody on a battlefield who is a threat to you and your troops. The Geneva Convention, The Hague Conventions, and whatever other internationalist documents there are floating around, can make birdcage linings. This is the USA. We don't defer to globalists and their demands.

Wow, way to go. So the only way to identify a spy is to capture them. Once captured, by your rules, we are supposed to shoot them. Yet, when they are captured, how big a threat can they be? Certainly not an immediate threat. We can question them, take our time, and get it right. Ask lots of questions, and probably get some answers.

Nope, again with the knee jerk asinine answer that is by the way, illegal.

Those international agreements that you so deride are the foundation of the regulations on the conduct of war. Those Regulations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is what got Lynndie England charged, tried, and convicted in a Courts Martial. She violated the regulations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The laws that govern our uniformed services. The laws you suggest be made into birdcage linings.

If you did serve in the Military, you were and are a disgrace to the uniform.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well Mr. Wannabe Moderator. The responses can follow various threads. It happens all the time. If you don’t like it, then go and start your own message board where people are forced to answer how right you are. Otherwise, learn to live with it.

NO, YOU learn to live with the rules of THIS message board. And if you don't like them you can get the hell out.

File your complaint, and seal it with a kiss to my left ass cheek.

 

[protectionist]

You want to know how to get the information? It’s a lot easier than finding a wood chipper and someone who could have their feet removed and somehow not bleed to death. Idiot.

It would take perhaps an hour. But the idea obviously never occurred to you, since you prove the truth of what I was taught years ago. The reason to torture is not to get information, you get inaccurate information, the reason to torture is the one doing the torture, gets his rocks off hurting helpless people.

Want to save those lives? It’s called immunity. You can have it in one hour. Leaving you twenty three hours to locate the bomb, and stop it from going off. Toss in some money, why not? Hell throw in a weekend in Vegas with a dozen hookers for the bastard. It would still be cheaper than the damages from the bomb. But no, you just want to break out the wood chipper. Dunce.

You let one guy go, and you save millions of lives. But that idea never occurred to you. Nah, you just want to break out the pliers and start removing fingernails. I can only guess the idea of torturing someone appeals to you.

That’s the problem with all the ticking time bomb scenarios. Torture is literally the worst answer in every single one of them. But small minds will come up with stupid answers.

One jackass gets away, perhaps into witness protection. You save millions of lives, countless trillions of dollars in property, and you save the day. Instead, you demand that anyone who doesn’t go with the least reliable method of getting information is cold and callous and doesn’t care about the innocents. Fool.

OK. Little boy. I will explain this to you again one last time, because you can't seem to get the idea of this thread. There doesn't have to be anything about a wood chipper (although just the sound and sight of it might scare the guy into talking). Al the things that you ae getting so aggrieved about here, aren't really the idea.

The idea is the difference between being willing to allow millions of people to die, vs SOMEHOW/ANYHOW, depriving a person of their basic rights. Got it now, blockhead ?

PS - jihadists don't take bribes. they even kill themselves for their warped ideology (masquerading as a religion) - haven't you heard ?

 

[protectionist]

No.

Good answer. Of course we shouldn't.

And thank you for being brief, and to the point of the OP. I wish some others could do that.

 

[protectionist]

Wow, way to go. So the only way to identify a spy is to capture them. Once captured, by your rules, we are supposed to shoot them. Yet, when they are captured, how big a threat can they be? Certainly not an immediate threat. We can question them, take our time, and get it right. Ask lots of questions, and probably get some answers.

Nope, again with the knee jerk asinine answer that is by the way, illegal.

Those international agreements that you so deride are the foundation of the regulations on the conduct of war. Those Regulations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is what got Lynndie England charged, tried, and convicted in a Courts Martial. She violated the regulations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The laws that govern our uniformed services. The laws you suggest be made into birdcage linings.

If you did serve in the Military, you were and are a disgrace to the uniform.

No dum dum. THAT is NOT my rules. You sure have an awfully hard time understanding English.

The so-called "answer" as you call it, that you attribute to me, is NOT my answer, or anything close to it, rather, it is some gooneybird idea floating around in your rather deranged head.

I think you've made your way into the wrong locale. You appear to be looking for the local dive bar, to talk with a bunch of drunks who are just as incapable of comprehending conversation as you are....or maybe the local nuthouse.

I would respond to some of the idiotic things you said (ex. "that is by the way, illegal"), but they are too preposterous to be dignified with a response.

I will say that you don't seem to be able to distinguish between international law (which we in the US are not governed by), and national law which we are. The international laws (if one can even call them that) are what I referred to with birdcage linings, not the UCMJ, which is US law.

So you're a globalist, apparently. Well, that fits in neatly with all the rest of your inaccurate and looney-tune "assessments." Now you may go address the UN General Assembly, and bask in the warmth of all their anti-Americanism.