|
It's not even close to ad hominem. Uh, discrediting a statement based on its source rather than its content.
That would be an ad hominem by definition.
I'm not saying you're wrong to be wary of a statement or people who make them, but having a high profile does not automatically make your positions a load of rubbish. Being cautious involves examining the statement on your own instead of being carried solely by virtue of authority, and that's what I was inviting people to do when I posted the video.
Discuss, examine, critique. Please, be my guest.
|
Legalizing weed wont put mexican organized crime out of business. Sure it will dent their profits, but they will put their efforts into other illegal practices i.e. cocaine, kidnappings, robbery. The organized crime infrastructure wont disappear, it'll adapt. Their know-how is in illegal operations, they won't just let that go and start producing ice-cream with their capital.
The historical evidence suggests that they will transfer their know-how into a now legal business enterprise and crime rates will drop.
|
On May 16 2009 03:06 L wrote:Show nested quote +Legalizing weed wont put mexican organized crime out of business. Sure it will dent their profits, but they will put their efforts into other illegal practices i.e. cocaine, kidnappings, robbery. The organized crime infrastructure wont disappear, it'll adapt. Their know-how is in illegal operations, they won't just let that go and start producing ice-cream with their capital.
The historical evidence suggests that they will transfer their know-how into a now legal business enterprise and crime rates will drop.
OK, what is this historical evidence? and what is your example of a "legal business enterprise"?
|
On May 15 2009 21:25 Syntax Lost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 06:25 zizou21 wrote:On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:
It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners. really?.. like, can you not control yourself from posting absolute shit? Is there some dispute over the validity of any of my claims? There shouldn't be, since these things are easily checked. The point behind the statement isn't some blanket claim about the US or any of its citizens, but about Aegraen high regards for his constitution and founding fathers and illustrating what that really means. The most amusing thing about Aegraen is his claims that he's studying for his Master's degree in Intelligence. You would think that someone who has gotten that far acadmically would know something about referencing, supporting an argument and evidence, none of which he ever provides. Based solely on his own authority, we're supposed to believe that waterboarding is not torture and we're pussy free-thinking liberal socialists singing kumbaya for ever disagreeing with his say so. We're also supposed to believe that torture has been effective method for obtaining information, based again purely on his say so. I would think that someone involved in Intelligence would have sources readily available for verifying these claims, especially when challenged to provide evidence like this. However, we still seem to be waiting after 11 pages.
You do know that there were only a few who owned slaves correct? Does, the Bill of Rights sound like a document ridden with racism, or that of the Constitution? I suppose you would rather assuage the fact that you do not like seeing freedom for all, not discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, etc. Let's not even go into Government sanctioned discrimination and racism (Affirmative Action, quotas, perception, and other ludicrous things). The Founder's of my country were some of the wisest men in all of history building on the backs of classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and human history and human nature.
Lest we remind you that during that time period most of the world owned slaves, and even now many countries in Africa still have slaves.
I didn't set out to write a thesis. There have been many works in support of differing techniques, their pitfalls, and the opposite side. The opposite side to using some forms of coercive measures, has no clear line or thought on how to extract information from unwilling persons. A correlative can be found in Law Enforcement where according to Ariel Neuman and Daniel Salinas-Serrano "Heavily emphasis rapport building as the main tool for interrogators, it appears that without some underyling fear interrogations will rarely succeed (emphasis added)." Now, you couple that with radical religious extremists who willingly strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. I would like to hear some form of interrogation methods that would extract the needed information that is uncoercive.
Now, I understand many of you are against it purely for moral reasons, however we are in war, and in times of war it is a be killed or kill arena. There isn't time for the black and white world that civilians languish in. We know that without some underlying premise of fear that you will never get any information elicited, or educed from terrorists. Think about it for a second. If you were caught, and had no premise of harm, or put in some uncomfortable situations what would be your reasoning for giving up information? That is everything against human nature. Think about it when you a kid, and you knew something your sibling didn't and they kept asking you to tell them (We all know the I know something you don't jig), did they ever tell you? Nope. Now, that is the mildest form of 'secretive information' and they won't even tell you. How did you educe that information from them? Extrapolate that to hardened fundamentalists, and you can never expect to get any information from them.
I am a realist. I understand human nature, its functions, why it functions as it does, and why in times of war (life and death), there are few if any rules adhered to. The military is a farcry from the lifestyles that civilians enjoy and can lament against the military for protecting them. Rather, it should be that civilians need to grasp the fact that we are in fact in a struggle of life and death, whether it be inherently as precise as actual death, or the metaphorical death of civilization (USA) due to rampant fear, panic, and political central power in all times of such disarray. My founders saw that from history, and human nature, the consolidation of power is enivetable in long times of war, and panic, and as such we need to employ every means to achieve victory at the fastest possible speed. It is at the behest of all.
According to Robert Coulam in 'Approaches to Interrogation in the struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of cost and benefit', "Whether we like it or not, coercion might be more 'effective' than other methods in some circumstances." Those saying that coercive measures do not work, are wrong. The anecdotal and ad hoc evidence supports the case that coercive techniques do in fact work. However, in such a field as this, we will never be able to fully understand how effective any one method may be, but we can certainly deduce the ineffectiveness of methods.
Robert Coulam also opines "....strictly operational level a general reputation for ruthlessness might make suspects more responsive in an interrogation setting, even if brutality in fact is never used." The only goal in mind for the IC is for the preservation of Americans and America. The phantom moral compass in times of war, which in fact, the US has never had, nor any other country is the pursuit of nothingness. It is difficult for civilians to understand the stresses endured, of the battlefield, working to protect the country and its citizens, and the daily barrage of never knowing if you may live or die. The only guide in war, is survival.
Moreover, the rigid scientific study you expect, simply does not exist as such as mathematics, biology, physiology, and astronomy for the work we do is dynamic, ever changing, and based on human instincts, human nature, sociology, etc. There will never be a consensus of what works, and doesn't work, because each situation is different, and different techniques work in different situations.
The overall point I'm making is, do we want to uphold some imaginery moral compass in times of war and basically 'let' people die for these, or do we do what we have to, to survive, end the war as fast as possible, and ultimately have less casualties. It is the same debate about using the atomic bomb in WWII.
I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination.
Now, I'm not advocating horrendous atrocities such as breaking bones, stabbings, beatings to near death, ripping tendons, etc. There are lines to never cross, but there has to be some dileneation in the amount of force needed to elicit and educe the needed information. Many of those who we use 'coercive' techniques on have all ready been thoroughly background checked, verified that they know information needed.
(Too many authors to note (seriously like 30+)), Educing Information Interrogation Science and Art Foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase I. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC, December 2006.
Anyways, yes, those opposed to any harsh interrogation methods, are pussy liberals. Many of you have most likely grew up in households where discipline was at a minimum. We can clearly see the difference between those that were disciplined and taught manners and etiquette when they were young, and those who did what they wanted. All you have to do is look at the current generation, and how absurdly PC emotionally butt-hurt people get. Oh, I'm offended, now I'm going to sue you for emotional distress. Give me a break. I pine for the generations of the past, where there was 'gasp' humour, sarcasm, and general laughable discourse. The notion that everyone is serious all the time is ludicrous. Live a little. (Perhaps, if you join the military you may get a sense of this 'live a little' experience, its quite fun)
|
On May 16 2009 03:24 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 21:25 Syntax Lost wrote:On May 15 2009 06:25 zizou21 wrote:On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:
It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners. really?.. like, can you not control yourself from posting absolute shit? Is there some dispute over the validity of any of my claims? There shouldn't be, since these things are easily checked. The point behind the statement isn't some blanket claim about the US or any of its citizens, but about Aegraen high regards for his constitution and founding fathers and illustrating what that really means. The most amusing thing about Aegraen is his claims that he's studying for his Master's degree in Intelligence. You would think that someone who has gotten that far acadmically would know something about referencing, supporting an argument and evidence, none of which he ever provides. Based solely on his own authority, we're supposed to believe that waterboarding is not torture and we're pussy free-thinking liberal socialists singing kumbaya for ever disagreeing with his say so. We're also supposed to believe that torture has been effective method for obtaining information, based again purely on his say so. I would think that someone involved in Intelligence would have sources readily available for verifying these claims, especially when challenged to provide evidence like this. However, we still seem to be waiting after 11 pages. You do know that there were only a few who owned slaves correct? Does, the Bill of Rights sound like a document ridden with racism, or that of the Constitution? I suppose you would rather assuage the fact that you do not like seeing freedom for all, not discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, etc. Let's not even go into Government sanctioned discrimination and racism (Affirmative Action, quotas, perception, and other ludicrous things). The Founder's of my country were some of the wisest men in all of history building on the backs of classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and human history and human nature. Lest we remind you that during that time period most of the world owned slaves, and even now many countries in Africa still have slaves. I didn't set out to write a thesis. There have been many works in support of differing techniques, their pitfalls, and the opposite side. The opposite side to using some forms of coercive measures, has no clear line or thought on how to extract information from unwilling persons. A correlative can be found in Law Enforcement where according to Ariel Neuman and Daniel Salinas-Serrano "Heavily emphasis rapport building as the main tool for interrogators, it appears that without some underyling fear interrogations will rarely succeed (emphasis added)." Now, you couple that with radical religious extremists who willingly strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. I would like to hear some form of interrogation methods that would extract the needed information that is uncoercive. Now, I understand many of you are against it purely for moral reasons, however we are in war, and in times of war it is a be killed or kill arena. There isn't time for the black and white world that civilians languish in. We know that without some underlying premise of fear that you will never get any information elicited, or educed from terrorists. Think about it for a second. If you were caught, and had no premise of harm, or put in some uncomfortable situations what would be your reasoning for giving up information? That is everything against human nature. Think about it when you a kid, and you knew something your sibling didn't and they kept asking you to tell them (We all know the I know something you don't jig), did they ever tell you? Nope. Now, that is the mildest form of 'secretive information' and they won't even tell you. How did you educe that information from them? Extrapolate that to hardened fundamentalists, and you can never expect to get any information from them. I am a realist. I understand human nature, its functions, why it functions as it does, and why in times of war (life and death), there are few if any rules adhered to. The military is a farcry from the lifestyles that civilians enjoy and can lament against the military for protecting them. Rather, it should be that civilians need to grasp the fact that we are in fact in a struggle of life and death, whether it be inherently as precise as actual death, or the metaphorical death of civilization (USA) due to rampant fear, panic, and political central power in all times of such disarray. My founders saw that from history, and human nature, the consolidation of power is enivetable in long times of war, and panic, and as such we need to employ every means to achieve victory at the fastest possible speed. It is at the behest of all. According to Robert Coulam in 'Approaches to Interrogation in the struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of cost and benefit', "Whether we like it or not, coercion might be more 'effective' than other methods in some circumstances." Those saying that coercive measures do not work, are wrong. The anecdotal and ad hoc evidence supports the case that coercive techniques do in fact work. However, in such a field as this, we will never be able to fully understand how effective any one method may be, but we can certainly deduce the ineffectiveness of methods. Robert Coulam also opines "....strictly operational level a general reputation for ruthlessness might make suspects more responsive in an interrogation setting, even if brutality in fact is never used." The only goal in mind for the IC is for the preservation of Americans and America. The phantom moral compass in times of war, which in fact, the US has never had, nor any other country is the pursuit of nothingness. It is difficult for civilians to understand the stresses endured, of the battlefield, working to protect the country and its citizens, and the daily barrage of never knowing if you may live or die. The only guide in war, is survival. Moreover, the rigid scientific study you expect, simply does not exist as such as mathematics, biology, physiology, and astronomy for the work we do is dynamic, ever changing, and based on human instincts, human nature, sociology, etc. There will never be a consensus of what works, and doesn't work, because each situation is different, and different techniques work in different situations. The overall point I'm making is, do we want to uphold some imaginery moral compass in times of war and basically 'let' people die for these, or do we do what we have to, to survive, end the war as fast as possible, and ultimately have less casualties. It is the same debate about using the atomic bomb in WWII. I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination. Now, I'm not advocating horrendous atrocities such as breaking bones, stabbings, beatings to near death, ripping tendons, etc. There are lines to never cross, but there has to be some dileneation in the amount of force needed to elicit and educe the needed information. Many of those who we use 'coercive' techniques on have all ready been thoroughly background checked, verified that they know information needed. (Too many authors to note (seriously like 30+)), Educing Information Interrogation Science and Art Foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase I. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC, December 2006. Anyways, yes, those opposed to any harsh interrogation methods, are pussy liberals. Many of you have most likely grew up in households where discipline was at a minimum. We can clearly see the difference between those that were disciplined and taught manners and etiquette when they were young, and those who did what they wanted. All you have to do is look at the current generation, and how absurdly PC emotionally butt-hurt people get. Oh, I'm offended, now I'm going to sue you for emotional distress. Give me a break. I pine for the generations of the past, where there was 'gasp' humour, sarcasm, and general laughable discourse. The notion that everyone is serious all the time is ludicrous. Live a little. (Perhaps, if you join the military you may get a sense of this 'live a little' experience, its quite fun)
you keep talking about protecting, but this is a war of aggression.
or did i miss the day Iraq attacked the US?
|
On May 16 2009 03:06 L wrote:Show nested quote +Legalizing weed wont put mexican organized crime out of business. Sure it will dent their profits, but they will put their efforts into other illegal practices i.e. cocaine, kidnappings, robbery. The organized crime infrastructure wont disappear, it'll adapt. Their know-how is in illegal operations, they won't just let that go and start producing ice-cream with their capital.
The historical evidence suggests that they will transfer their know-how into a now legal business enterprise and crime rates will drop.
Of course. Nice logic though. Let's just legalize everything and then the crime rate will be zero. Amazing deductive reasoning. Now, I am in fact for legalizing it, but really, legalizing it creates its own seperate consequences about on par of it being illegal. (The only reason being, that it really is not that dangerous of a drug and we should focus our attention on the really pressing issues such as: cocaine, meph, crack, heroine, LSD, etc.)
It is much easier to produce your own, than say; alcohol, which is what everyone compares it to. The government won't be making any money off of it. What are you going to do? Make it illegal to have in your house/garden? How are you improving the situation any? How are you going to stop second hand intoxication?
The problem with mexico is corruption. A simple legalization will never fix that issue. Throwing money at the problem; will never fix the issue. We should be in the business of mitigation at this point having the wall fully built, National Guard/Reserves on the border, and heavy ICE enforcement on illegal immigration.
So, yes, I agree. The cartels aren't going anywhere, they will just continue to export to other countries and continue running as always.
|
On May 16 2009 03:34 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 03:24 Aegraen wrote:On May 15 2009 21:25 Syntax Lost wrote:On May 15 2009 06:25 zizou21 wrote:On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:
It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners. really?.. like, can you not control yourself from posting absolute shit? Is there some dispute over the validity of any of my claims? There shouldn't be, since these things are easily checked. The point behind the statement isn't some blanket claim about the US or any of its citizens, but about Aegraen high regards for his constitution and founding fathers and illustrating what that really means. The most amusing thing about Aegraen is his claims that he's studying for his Master's degree in Intelligence. You would think that someone who has gotten that far acadmically would know something about referencing, supporting an argument and evidence, none of which he ever provides. Based solely on his own authority, we're supposed to believe that waterboarding is not torture and we're pussy free-thinking liberal socialists singing kumbaya for ever disagreeing with his say so. We're also supposed to believe that torture has been effective method for obtaining information, based again purely on his say so. I would think that someone involved in Intelligence would have sources readily available for verifying these claims, especially when challenged to provide evidence like this. However, we still seem to be waiting after 11 pages. You do know that there were only a few who owned slaves correct? Does, the Bill of Rights sound like a document ridden with racism, or that of the Constitution? I suppose you would rather assuage the fact that you do not like seeing freedom for all, not discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, etc. Let's not even go into Government sanctioned discrimination and racism (Affirmative Action, quotas, perception, and other ludicrous things). The Founder's of my country were some of the wisest men in all of history building on the backs of classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and human history and human nature. Lest we remind you that during that time period most of the world owned slaves, and even now many countries in Africa still have slaves. I didn't set out to write a thesis. There have been many works in support of differing techniques, their pitfalls, and the opposite side. The opposite side to using some forms of coercive measures, has no clear line or thought on how to extract information from unwilling persons. A correlative can be found in Law Enforcement where according to Ariel Neuman and Daniel Salinas-Serrano "Heavily emphasis rapport building as the main tool for interrogators, it appears that without some underyling fear interrogations will rarely succeed (emphasis added)." Now, you couple that with radical religious extremists who willingly strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. I would like to hear some form of interrogation methods that would extract the needed information that is uncoercive. Now, I understand many of you are against it purely for moral reasons, however we are in war, and in times of war it is a be killed or kill arena. There isn't time for the black and white world that civilians languish in. We know that without some underlying premise of fear that you will never get any information elicited, or educed from terrorists. Think about it for a second. If you were caught, and had no premise of harm, or put in some uncomfortable situations what would be your reasoning for giving up information? That is everything against human nature. Think about it when you a kid, and you knew something your sibling didn't and they kept asking you to tell them (We all know the I know something you don't jig), did they ever tell you? Nope. Now, that is the mildest form of 'secretive information' and they won't even tell you. How did you educe that information from them? Extrapolate that to hardened fundamentalists, and you can never expect to get any information from them. I am a realist. I understand human nature, its functions, why it functions as it does, and why in times of war (life and death), there are few if any rules adhered to. The military is a farcry from the lifestyles that civilians enjoy and can lament against the military for protecting them. Rather, it should be that civilians need to grasp the fact that we are in fact in a struggle of life and death, whether it be inherently as precise as actual death, or the metaphorical death of civilization (USA) due to rampant fear, panic, and political central power in all times of such disarray. My founders saw that from history, and human nature, the consolidation of power is enivetable in long times of war, and panic, and as such we need to employ every means to achieve victory at the fastest possible speed. It is at the behest of all. According to Robert Coulam in 'Approaches to Interrogation in the struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of cost and benefit', "Whether we like it or not, coercion might be more 'effective' than other methods in some circumstances." Those saying that coercive measures do not work, are wrong. The anecdotal and ad hoc evidence supports the case that coercive techniques do in fact work. However, in such a field as this, we will never be able to fully understand how effective any one method may be, but we can certainly deduce the ineffectiveness of methods. Robert Coulam also opines "....strictly operational level a general reputation for ruthlessness might make suspects more responsive in an interrogation setting, even if brutality in fact is never used." The only goal in mind for the IC is for the preservation of Americans and America. The phantom moral compass in times of war, which in fact, the US has never had, nor any other country is the pursuit of nothingness. It is difficult for civilians to understand the stresses endured, of the battlefield, working to protect the country and its citizens, and the daily barrage of never knowing if you may live or die. The only guide in war, is survival. Moreover, the rigid scientific study you expect, simply does not exist as such as mathematics, biology, physiology, and astronomy for the work we do is dynamic, ever changing, and based on human instincts, human nature, sociology, etc. There will never be a consensus of what works, and doesn't work, because each situation is different, and different techniques work in different situations. The overall point I'm making is, do we want to uphold some imaginery moral compass in times of war and basically 'let' people die for these, or do we do what we have to, to survive, end the war as fast as possible, and ultimately have less casualties. It is the same debate about using the atomic bomb in WWII. I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination. Now, I'm not advocating horrendous atrocities such as breaking bones, stabbings, beatings to near death, ripping tendons, etc. There are lines to never cross, but there has to be some dileneation in the amount of force needed to elicit and educe the needed information. Many of those who we use 'coercive' techniques on have all ready been thoroughly background checked, verified that they know information needed. (Too many authors to note (seriously like 30+)), Educing Information Interrogation Science and Art Foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase I. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC, December 2006. Anyways, yes, those opposed to any harsh interrogation methods, are pussy liberals. Many of you have most likely grew up in households where discipline was at a minimum. We can clearly see the difference between those that were disciplined and taught manners and etiquette when they were young, and those who did what they wanted. All you have to do is look at the current generation, and how absurdly PC emotionally butt-hurt people get. Oh, I'm offended, now I'm going to sue you for emotional distress. Give me a break. I pine for the generations of the past, where there was 'gasp' humour, sarcasm, and general laughable discourse. The notion that everyone is serious all the time is ludicrous. Live a little. (Perhaps, if you join the military you may get a sense of this 'live a little' experience, its quite fun) you keep talking about protecting, but this is a war of aggression. or did i miss the day Iraq attacked the US?
Firstly, we are in two wars. One we were attacked, not sure if you know, but 9/11 may ring a bell. Second, was for many reasons. I will point out the proxy war Saddam waged against the US. However, you won't hear any of it. You'll just put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalalalala' real loud and pretend it never happened. Did you know Saddam was giving and offering to any suicide bomber to blow themselves up against the US 25,000$? Also, its a known fact, that Saddam was after WMD's, much as Iran is doing now.
The proper recourse in your eyes would be? Wait until he completes what he wants, launches, wait for the dead to pile up, then attack? Sorry, but threats to the US should be dealt with. In my political views, we should not meddle in any international affairs, and let countries handle themselves, but as soon as they have any open hostilities towards the US and its citizens you better be extra careful. That said, we should trade with any country not inherently wishing direct harm on the US or its citizens. This is called, non-interventionism as Robert Taft extolled.
|
On May 16 2009 03:44 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 03:34 jeppew wrote:On May 16 2009 03:24 Aegraen wrote:On May 15 2009 21:25 Syntax Lost wrote:On May 15 2009 06:25 zizou21 wrote:On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:
It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners. really?.. like, can you not control yourself from posting absolute shit? Is there some dispute over the validity of any of my claims? There shouldn't be, since these things are easily checked. The point behind the statement isn't some blanket claim about the US or any of its citizens, but about Aegraen high regards for his constitution and founding fathers and illustrating what that really means. The most amusing thing about Aegraen is his claims that he's studying for his Master's degree in Intelligence. You would think that someone who has gotten that far acadmically would know something about referencing, supporting an argument and evidence, none of which he ever provides. Based solely on his own authority, we're supposed to believe that waterboarding is not torture and we're pussy free-thinking liberal socialists singing kumbaya for ever disagreeing with his say so. We're also supposed to believe that torture has been effective method for obtaining information, based again purely on his say so. I would think that someone involved in Intelligence would have sources readily available for verifying these claims, especially when challenged to provide evidence like this. However, we still seem to be waiting after 11 pages. You do know that there were only a few who owned slaves correct? Does, the Bill of Rights sound like a document ridden with racism, or that of the Constitution? I suppose you would rather assuage the fact that you do not like seeing freedom for all, not discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, etc. Let's not even go into Government sanctioned discrimination and racism (Affirmative Action, quotas, perception, and other ludicrous things). The Founder's of my country were some of the wisest men in all of history building on the backs of classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and human history and human nature. Lest we remind you that during that time period most of the world owned slaves, and even now many countries in Africa still have slaves. I didn't set out to write a thesis. There have been many works in support of differing techniques, their pitfalls, and the opposite side. The opposite side to using some forms of coercive measures, has no clear line or thought on how to extract information from unwilling persons. A correlative can be found in Law Enforcement where according to Ariel Neuman and Daniel Salinas-Serrano "Heavily emphasis rapport building as the main tool for interrogators, it appears that without some underyling fear interrogations will rarely succeed (emphasis added)." Now, you couple that with radical religious extremists who willingly strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. I would like to hear some form of interrogation methods that would extract the needed information that is uncoercive. Now, I understand many of you are against it purely for moral reasons, however we are in war, and in times of war it is a be killed or kill arena. There isn't time for the black and white world that civilians languish in. We know that without some underlying premise of fear that you will never get any information elicited, or educed from terrorists. Think about it for a second. If you were caught, and had no premise of harm, or put in some uncomfortable situations what would be your reasoning for giving up information? That is everything against human nature. Think about it when you a kid, and you knew something your sibling didn't and they kept asking you to tell them (We all know the I know something you don't jig), did they ever tell you? Nope. Now, that is the mildest form of 'secretive information' and they won't even tell you. How did you educe that information from them? Extrapolate that to hardened fundamentalists, and you can never expect to get any information from them. I am a realist. I understand human nature, its functions, why it functions as it does, and why in times of war (life and death), there are few if any rules adhered to. The military is a farcry from the lifestyles that civilians enjoy and can lament against the military for protecting them. Rather, it should be that civilians need to grasp the fact that we are in fact in a struggle of life and death, whether it be inherently as precise as actual death, or the metaphorical death of civilization (USA) due to rampant fear, panic, and political central power in all times of such disarray. My founders saw that from history, and human nature, the consolidation of power is enivetable in long times of war, and panic, and as such we need to employ every means to achieve victory at the fastest possible speed. It is at the behest of all. According to Robert Coulam in 'Approaches to Interrogation in the struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of cost and benefit', "Whether we like it or not, coercion might be more 'effective' than other methods in some circumstances." Those saying that coercive measures do not work, are wrong. The anecdotal and ad hoc evidence supports the case that coercive techniques do in fact work. However, in such a field as this, we will never be able to fully understand how effective any one method may be, but we can certainly deduce the ineffectiveness of methods. Robert Coulam also opines "....strictly operational level a general reputation for ruthlessness might make suspects more responsive in an interrogation setting, even if brutality in fact is never used." The only goal in mind for the IC is for the preservation of Americans and America. The phantom moral compass in times of war, which in fact, the US has never had, nor any other country is the pursuit of nothingness. It is difficult for civilians to understand the stresses endured, of the battlefield, working to protect the country and its citizens, and the daily barrage of never knowing if you may live or die. The only guide in war, is survival. Moreover, the rigid scientific study you expect, simply does not exist as such as mathematics, biology, physiology, and astronomy for the work we do is dynamic, ever changing, and based on human instincts, human nature, sociology, etc. There will never be a consensus of what works, and doesn't work, because each situation is different, and different techniques work in different situations. The overall point I'm making is, do we want to uphold some imaginery moral compass in times of war and basically 'let' people die for these, or do we do what we have to, to survive, end the war as fast as possible, and ultimately have less casualties. It is the same debate about using the atomic bomb in WWII. I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination. Now, I'm not advocating horrendous atrocities such as breaking bones, stabbings, beatings to near death, ripping tendons, etc. There are lines to never cross, but there has to be some dileneation in the amount of force needed to elicit and educe the needed information. Many of those who we use 'coercive' techniques on have all ready been thoroughly background checked, verified that they know information needed. (Too many authors to note (seriously like 30+)), Educing Information Interrogation Science and Art Foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase I. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC, December 2006. Anyways, yes, those opposed to any harsh interrogation methods, are pussy liberals. Many of you have most likely grew up in households where discipline was at a minimum. We can clearly see the difference between those that were disciplined and taught manners and etiquette when they were young, and those who did what they wanted. All you have to do is look at the current generation, and how absurdly PC emotionally butt-hurt people get. Oh, I'm offended, now I'm going to sue you for emotional distress. Give me a break. I pine for the generations of the past, where there was 'gasp' humour, sarcasm, and general laughable discourse. The notion that everyone is serious all the time is ludicrous. Live a little. (Perhaps, if you join the military you may get a sense of this 'live a little' experience, its quite fun) you keep talking about protecting, but this is a war of aggression. or did i miss the day Iraq attacked the US? Firstly, we are in two wars. One we were attacked, not sure if you know, but 9/11 may ring a bell. Second, was for many reasons. I will point out the proxy war Saddam waged against the US. However, you won't hear any of it. You'll just put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalalalala' real loud and pretend it never happened. Did you know Saddam was giving and offering to any suicide bomber to blow themselves up against the US 25,000$? Also, its a known fact, that Saddam was after WMD's, much as Iran is doing now. The proper recourse in your eyes would be? Wait until he completes what he wants, launches, wait for the dead to pile up, then attack? Sorry, but threats to the US should be dealt with. In my political views, we should not meddle in any international affairs, and let countries handle themselves, but as soon as they have any open hostilities towards the US and its citizens you better be extra careful. That said, we should trade with any country not inherently wishing direct harm on the US or its citizens. This is called, non-interventionism as Robert Taft extolled.
i thought the invasion of afghanistan was in response to 9/11, and that kind of had to get in the backseat for the Iraq war. edit: and that was completly justified.
and funny about the WMD's how numerous inspections before to the war found no trace of them or a program to aquire them and there's still no proof, and other nations that are actively pursuing them are not suddenly invaded, just Iraq.
i had no idea about the suicide bombing job opportunity thing though.
|
On May 16 2009 03:24 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 21:25 Syntax Lost wrote:On May 15 2009 06:25 zizou21 wrote:On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:
It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners. really?.. like, can you not control yourself from posting absolute shit? Is there some dispute over the validity of any of my claims? There shouldn't be, since these things are easily checked. The point behind the statement isn't some blanket claim about the US or any of its citizens, but about Aegraen high regards for his constitution and founding fathers and illustrating what that really means. The most amusing thing about Aegraen is his claims that he's studying for his Master's degree in Intelligence. You would think that someone who has gotten that far acadmically would know something about referencing, supporting an argument and evidence, none of which he ever provides. Based solely on his own authority, we're supposed to believe that waterboarding is not torture and we're pussy free-thinking liberal socialists singing kumbaya for ever disagreeing with his say so. We're also supposed to believe that torture has been effective method for obtaining information, based again purely on his say so. I would think that someone involved in Intelligence would have sources readily available for verifying these claims, especially when challenged to provide evidence like this. However, we still seem to be waiting after 11 pages. You do know that there were only a few who owned slaves correct? Does, the Bill of Rights sound like a document ridden with racism, or that of the Constitution? I suppose you would rather assuage the fact that you do not like seeing freedom for all, not discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, etc. Let's not even go into Government sanctioned discrimination and racism (Affirmative Action, quotas, perception, and other ludicrous things). The Founder's of my country were some of the wisest men in all of history building on the backs of classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and human history and human nature. Lest we remind you that during that time period most of the world owned slaves, and even now many countries in Africa still have slaves.
What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law.
I didn't set out to write a thesis. There have been many works in support of differing techniques, their pitfalls, and the opposite side. The opposite side to using some forms of coercive measures, has no clear line or thought on how to extract information from unwilling persons. A correlative can be found in Law Enforcement where according to Ariel Neuman and Daniel Salinas-Serrano "Heavily emphasis rapport building as the main tool for interrogators, it appears that without some underyling fear interrogations will rarely succeed (emphasis added)." Now, you couple that with radical religious extremists who willingly strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. I would like to hear some form of interrogation methods that would extract the needed information that is uncoercive.
So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause.
Now, I understand many of you are against it purely for moral reasons, however we are in war, and in times of war it is a be killed or kill arena. There isn't time for the black and white world that civilians languish in. We know that without some underlying premise of fear that you will never get any information elicited, or educed from terrorists. Think about it for a second. If you were caught, and had no premise of harm, or put in some uncomfortable situations what would be your reasoning for giving up information? That is everything against human nature. Think about it when you a kid, and you knew something your sibling didn't and they kept asking you to tell them (We all know the I know something you don't jig), did they ever tell you? Nope. Now, that is the mildest form of 'secretive information' and they won't even tell you. How did you educe that information from them? Extrapolate that to hardened fundamentalists, and you can never expect to get any information from them.
I am a realist. I understand human nature, its functions, why it functions as it does, and why in times of war (life and death), there are few if any rules adhered to. The military is a farcry from the lifestyles that civilians enjoy and can lament against the military for protecting them. Rather, it should be that civilians need to grasp the fact that we are in fact in a struggle of life and death, whether it be inherently as precise as actual death, or the metaphorical death of civilization (USA) due to rampant fear, panic, and political central power in all times of such disarray. My founders saw that from history, and human nature, the consolidation of power is enivetable in long times of war, and panic, and as such we need to employ every means to achieve victory at the fastest possible speed. It is at the behest of all.
I don't see any arguments here that show that torture is effective.
According to Robert Coulam in 'Approaches to Interrogation in the struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of cost and benefit', "Whether we like it or not, coercion might be more 'effective' than other methods in some circumstances." Those saying that coercive measures do not work, are wrong. The anecdotal and ad hoc evidence supports the case that coercive techniques do in fact work. However, in such a field as this, we will never be able to fully understand how effective any one method may be, but we can certainly deduce the ineffectiveness of methods.
Robert Coulam also opines "....strictly operational level a general reputation for ruthlessness might make suspects more responsive in an interrogation setting, even if brutality in fact is never used." The only goal in mind for the IC is for the preservation of Americans and America. The phantom moral compass in times of war, which in fact, the US has never had, nor any other country is the pursuit of nothingness. It is difficult for civilians to understand the stresses endured, of the battlefield, working to protect the country and its citizens, and the daily barrage of never knowing if you may live or die. The only guide in war, is survival.
Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be.
Moreover, the rigid scientific study you expect, simply does not exist as such as mathematics, biology, physiology, and astronomy for the work we do is dynamic, ever changing, and based on human instincts, human nature, sociology, etc. There will never be a consensus of what works, and doesn't work, because each situation is different, and different techniques work in different situations.
Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people.
The overall point I'm making is, do we want to uphold some imaginery moral compass in times of war and basically 'let' people die for these, or do we do what we have to, to survive, end the war as fast as possible, and ultimately have less casualties. It is the same debate about using the atomic bomb in WWII.
I stand on the side of survival and preservation; realism. You stand on the side of ideology; faerie tales of some intrinsic utopia that is a figment of your imagination.
I'm sure all people stand on the side of evidence being a basis for an argument, and so far you have nothing conclusive in favour of torture, you said so yourself.
Now, I'm not advocating horrendous atrocities such as breaking bones, stabbings, beatings to near death, ripping tendons, etc. There are lines to never cross, but there has to be some dileneation in the amount of force needed to elicit and educe the needed information. Many of those who we use 'coercive' techniques on have all ready been thoroughly background checked, verified that they know information needed.
(Too many authors to note (seriously like 30+)), Educing Information Interrogation Science and Art Foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase I. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC, December 2006.
Anyways, yes, those opposed to any harsh interrogation methods, are pussy liberals. Many of you have most likely grew up in households where discipline was at a minimum. We can clearly see the difference between those that were disciplined and taught manners and etiquette when they were young, and those who did what they wanted. All you have to do is look at the current generation, and how absurdly PC emotionally butt-hurt people get. Oh, I'm offended, now I'm going to sue you for emotional distress. Give me a break. I pine for the generations of the past, where there was 'gasp' humour, sarcasm, and general laughable discourse. The notion that everyone is serious all the time is ludicrous. Live a little. (Perhaps, if you join the military you may get a sense of this 'live a little' experience, its quite fun)
Please can you show me the clear difference between people given little discipline and people given lots of discipline, and also how this relates to the discussion?
|
On May 16 2009 03:55 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 03:24 Aegraen wrote:
Now, I'm not advocating horrendous atrocities such as breaking bones, stabbings, beatings to near death, ripping tendons, etc. There are lines to never cross, but there has to be some dileneation in the amount of force needed to elicit and educe the needed information. Many of those who we use 'coercive' techniques on have all ready been thoroughly background checked, verified that they know information needed.
(Too many authors to note (seriously like 30+)), Educing Information Interrogation Science and Art Foundations for the Future. Intelligence Science Board Phase I. National Defense Intelligence College, Washington DC, December 2006.
Anyways, yes, those opposed to any harsh interrogation methods, are pussy liberals. Many of you have most likely grew up in households where discipline was at a minimum. We can clearly see the difference between those that were disciplined and taught manners and etiquette when they were young, and those who did what they wanted. All you have to do is look at the current generation, and how absurdly PC emotionally butt-hurt people get. Oh, I'm offended, now I'm going to sue you for emotional distress. Give me a break. I pine for the generations of the past, where there was 'gasp' humour, sarcasm, and general laughable discourse. The notion that everyone is serious all the time is ludicrous. Live a little. (Perhaps, if you join the military you may get a sense of this 'live a little' experience, its quite fun) Please can you show me the clear difference between people given little discipline and people given lots of discipline, and also how this relates to the discussion?
it's because he was spanked as a child, and thus is clearly of superior fiber compared to un-spanked people.
|
This thread makes me sad. TL used to be full of intelligent people. Lots of stupidity in here.
|
On May 16 2009 03:44 Aegraen wrote:
Also, its a known fact, that Saddam was after WMD's, much as Iran is doing now.
That is not a "known fact." The Iraq Survey Group found that while Saddam may have intended to acquire WMDs after getting sanctions lifted, he was not actively pursuing any WMD technology and had not been since the first Gulf War.
|
On May 16 2009 04:21 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 03:44 Aegraen wrote:
Also, its a known fact, that Saddam was after WMD's, much as Iran is doing now. That is not a "known fact." The Iraq Survey Group found that while Saddam may have intended to acquire WMDs after getting sanctions lifted, he was not actively pursuing any WMD technology and had not been since the first Gulf War.
Then how come UNSCOM says the direct opposite? Why also, would he hide from UN inspectors?
|
On May 16 2009 04:25 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 04:21 Mindcrime wrote:On May 16 2009 03:44 Aegraen wrote:
Also, its a known fact, that Saddam was after WMD's, much as Iran is doing now. That is not a "known fact." The Iraq Survey Group found that while Saddam may have intended to acquire WMDs after getting sanctions lifted, he was not actively pursuing any WMD technology and had not been since the first Gulf War. Then how come UNSCOM says the direct opposite? Why also, would he hide from UN inspectors?
"says"? UNSCOM was replaced around 2000 or '99 iirc, because CIA had used the organisation to spy on Iraq.
|
When did UNSCOM declare that Saddam was seeking WMDs? I have seen no such claims made by that group. Name the report.
And why would Saddam not cooperate completely? sovereignty? allegations of spying? take your pick
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 16 2009 02:57 L wrote: Uh, discrediting a statement based on its source rather than its content. That would be an ad hominem by definition. I'm not saying you're wrong to be wary of a statement or people who make them, but having a high profile does not automatically make your positions a load of rubbish.
Of course it doesn't, but Ventura is a populist. If you study his history, I'm sure you'll come to that conclusion.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 16 2009 02:23 Diomedes wrote:
Please ban Jibba.
[edit]
lol you edited.
I don't even know who Rush Limbaugh is. Fact remains that people want to ban drugs regardless of the business oppertunities it creates of criminals. That's the reason it's not lifted. They believe drugs should not be freely available and that is more important than the problems it creates. It's not a complex issue regarding what it would do to organized crime.
On May 16 2009 02:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 02:06 Diomedes wrote:
You can't deny that legalizing drugs would put all the organized crime in Mexico out of business. It is really that simple. No one really disputes that.
So it's not populism. It's just giving a solution no one likes. Yes, I can. There's human trafficking, protection, black markets, new crime, etc. Find me one expert that actually believes legalizing drugs will end all the organized crime in Mexico. When prohibition ended, did all the gangsters suddenly decide to give up their territory and pick up honest jobs? I seriously can't believe you just posted that, so I'm glad I'm quoting it in time before an edit. Could it help? Sure. Is it way more complicated than that? Fuck, yes. On May 16 2009 02:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 02:06 Diomedes wrote:
You can't deny that legalizing drugs would put all the organized crime in Mexico out of business. It is really that simple. No one really disputes that.
So it's not populism. It's just giving a solution no one likes. Yes, I can. There's human trafficking, protection, black markets, new crime, etc. Find me one expert that actually believes legalizing drugs will end all the organized crime in Mexico. When prohibition ended, did all the gangsters suddenly decide to give up their territory and pick up honest jobs? I seriously can't believe you just posted that, so I'm glad I'm quoting it in time before an edit. Could it help? Sure. Is it way more complicated than that? Fuck, yes.
|
OK, what is this historical evidence? and what is your example of a "legal business enterprise"? Prohibition era ban on the sale of alcohol. Crime dropped, the mafia lost its main source of revenue and was substantially reduced in size. An example of "legal business enterprise"? Selling now legal cannabis and hemp products at far lower margins and not killing people who interfere with their business because they now have a legal system within which to arbitrate issues.
Of course. Nice logic though. Let's just legalize everything and then the crime rate will be zero. Amazing deductive reasoning. Now, I am in fact for legalizing it, but really, legalizing it creates its own seperate consequences about on par of it being illegal. (The only reason being, that it really is not that dangerous of a drug and we should focus our attention on the really pressing issues such as: cocaine, meph, crack, heroine, LSD, etc.)
It is much easier to produce your own, than say; alcohol, which is what everyone compares it to. The government won't be making any money off of it. What are you going to do? Make it illegal to have in your house/garden? How are you improving the situation any? How are you going to stop second hand intoxication?
First off, the argument that I'm saying "legalize everything so nothing is a crime" was not my statement, nor was it my argument. The trade-off between legalization and prohibition is pretty clearcut: black market vs. people toking up legally. Ventura puts it as "marijuana or murder" which is a bit extreme, but its pretty close. Even then, you don't even need to make that trade-off. History and current case examples show that marijuana usage does not increase post-legalization, and that the deterrent effect of criminal law on recreational drugs is minor at best (netherlands/prohibition era).
More to the point, even if there is a danger in pot use, those dangers are not as acute as those which are created by the harder drugs you listed, and they are better dealt with in a regulatory manner as opposed with a prohibitory manner.
Second: lets look at your logic in the second paragraph: The drug is cheaper to produce than alcohol and the government won't be getting money out of it, therefore its bad. Why? If the drug is cheaper than alcohol and performs a roughly equivilant social drug function, then the economy benefits from scaling back usage of alcohol, which is more dangerous and more costly. More to the point: the government won't be getting any money out of it?
Seriously?
How's about the massive savings on prison expenses? Court proceedings? The penal system in certain states is bursting at the seams because they don't know where to lock up possession offenders anymore.
The problem with mexico is corruption You should know that the source of (legal) corruption is increased benefits from extra-legal activities (moral corruption would have immoral instead of extra-legal, and so on).
|
United States22883 Posts
You should start a "Legalize Drugs" thread or revive one of the older ones for this. I wasn't criticizing the overall concept, just the "this will solve everything" manner in which Ventura presented it. Lets get back to artificially drowning people.
|
What you're saying is times have changed quite significantly from the time when the constitution was written, yet you still uphold it as absolute law.
The US Constitution is revised, edited and updated if I'm not mistaken. Let me ask you how you think the US Constitution is so important to Americans? How did our relatively young nation come to be?
So there has to be underlying fear, not necessarily torture, yes? Also, it's naive to think that all religious extremists are themselves willing to blow themselves up for their cause.
Torture, three things come to mind, Mental instability, Fear, Pain. Again our arguments are centered around how little you know, its not about what we know. What the hell do you bring to the table about terrorism? What the hell do you know about it that makes your opinion any stronger than ours?
Yup, coercion MIGHT be more effective than other methods. Therefore, it also MIGHT not be.
I just want to know what you all think the US or any developed country may use torture for. Why do we torture? Do we enjoy it? If its so inefficient and antiquated why is it used? Why only in war seemingly? Why do you think?
Great, no consensus, so let's not torture people.
We don't live a perfect world is what were trying to tell you. I wish humans didn't use torture, I wish a million things but its not fucking reality. Humanity is the problem not America. We used to be the only shining fucking light out there but now its all about criticizing us. The problem I see is with humanity, human nature, mans cruelty towards man not the US specifically.
e: this is more directed at anyone who believes the quoted statements, feel free to answer on behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
