8 out of TEN or TEN in 80???? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-04-2005, 03:29 PM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:52 AM
8 out of TEN or TEN in 80????

There has been a lot of discussion about tactics used against detainees.

There has been a lot of discussion about detaining suspects,
without formal charges, or ‘so-called’ rights being extended.


So my question is?

If there are 80 individuals in a building and TEN of them are
absolute ‘’terrorists on a mission to kill innocent people’’
would you prefer either A. or B.



A.
All 80 suspects are gathered up, put in detention, and held for an undetermined period
without the common ‘so-called’ rights being extended as in other proceedings.
Extreme tactics are used against detainees to extract information.

B.
All 80 suspects are gathered up and questioned.
8 of the TEN absolute ‘’terrorists on a mission to kill innocent people’’
ARE identified and charged and held under more typical conditions and conventions.
The other 72, including 2 terrorists that escaped detection, are freed to go about their business.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 03:37 PM   #2
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,370
Local Time: 11:52 AM
and today's loaded question is brought to you by deep and the letter Q...
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 03:39 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
and today's loaded question is brought to you by deep and the letter Q...
Q ??
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 04:20 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:52 PM
first of all, why were 70 innocent people held as suspects? intelligence/ police forces must be a total failure. [in realpolitik they´re not. innocent people are tortured because politicians want to have the right to do so. the policy for catching "suspects" must be enforced because like this, politicians get more control. its the same with most of them. criminals, killers, and they torture where they can.]

and as a reply,

B.

no one has a legal right to hold 70 innocent people in A.s conditions. if you give that right to someone, you´re heading straight for an excuse for the next camps.

i´d rather see 2 terrorists free.

now i know some will ask the nice question:

and what if those two do an attack that kills hundreds of innocent people.

well,

"what if"

is no reason to warp justice in the constitutional state.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 05:00 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:52 AM
hiphop

thanks for your answer of:

B



i don't beleve the question is very loaded

anti-Bush Admin policies believers
will have to accept that
SOME terrorists will escaped detection, and will be freed to go about their business.


and there are short-commings to the current policies
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 05:46 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dismantled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,345
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Q ??
I'm guessing is stands for question..
__________________
Dismantled is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 05:54 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Re: 8 out of TEN or TEN in 80????

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
There has been a lot of discussion about tactics used against detainees.

There has been a lot of discussion about detaining suspects,
without formal charges, or ‘so-called’ rights being extended.


So my question is?

If there are 80 individuals in a building and TEN of them are
absolute ‘’terrorists on a mission to kill innocent people’’
would you prefer either A. or B.



A.
All 80 suspects are gathered up, put in detention, and held for an undetermined period
without the common ‘so-called’ rights being extended as in other proceedings.
Extreme tactics are used against detainees to extract information.

B.
All 80 suspects are gathered up and questioned.
8 of the TEN absolute ‘’terrorists on a mission to kill innocent people’’
ARE identified and charged and held under more typical conditions and conventions.
The other 72, including 2 terrorists that escaped detection, are freed to go about their business.
I think if you are in the US and you claim to believe in the goverment (not necessarily the current administration, but the basic govermental framework of the nation), the answer must be B.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 05:57 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:52 PM
B.

If you torture to get answers some even will say that they participated in 9-11.

Torture is no way to get information.
Others even will go through the torture and you won't get what you want.

And you lose your credibility, totally, if you torture. The war on terror can't be fought by becoming a terrorist. And you will reach the opposite if you torture hundreds of people, guilty and innocent. More people will hate you, the fundamentalists will find it easier to recruit people and terror attacks will become more awful.
You can't prevent terror attacks, but you can support them. And this is what the Bush administration is doing.

Similar mistakes were made in Vietnam, but how should Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney know? They haven't been there, and they don't care at all.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 07:02 PM   #9
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 04:52 PM
It's almost as if freedom and safety are like on two ends of a balance. Too many freedoms could create potential risks, and giving Americans no freedoms or rights at all would probably make this country safer.

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 07:32 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:52 PM
That's what some old people here in Germany still say (whose brain isn't working that well anymore):
"Under Hitler we had no criminals in the street."
I don't want to compare the regime of Hitler with the Bush administration, and those elderlies are not Nazis at all, maybe some of them were, but most of them, yes, they are old and can't think anymore.
But the problem with total control is that you have no freedom, are under control 24/7, and you're a suspect for the state the whole time.
And in the end, a terrorist gets what he wants, if not today, then he waits until tomorrow.
And if he fails, there is somebody else.
With things like torture you help this Hydra to recreate.
That's what Bono tries to say with Africa. If we don't help them, but view them rather as suspects, they want stay friends with us.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 07:59 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:52 PM
B. Torture will just screw up the whole thing. If you use torture it will just shatter any credibility we have to use as a moral compass. You're throwing morality out of the window and using some sort of horrrific realpolitik.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 08:25 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Where is this building? what nation, what is the political situation of that country, are they to be extradited to US custody? are they all to be ferried off to Guantanamo? Are they arrested in the United States (in which case their legal status is different and they should not be trafficked off overseas)?

Are we arresting 10 AQ members and 70 islamists who are not connected to any plot? is it 10 AQ members and 70 teachers and journalists? Are all those captured Muslms and if so do they adhere to more fundamentalist religious practices (being a fundamentalist does not make you a terrorist by default, but Islamist terrorists are almost without exception fundamentalists)?

Do we know that they are innocent people? how do we know that 70 of them are innocent? that is sure as hell a lot simpler than the situation that we have now and I think that knowledge would expedite the processing of their status.

What is the threshold? if this is a plot with biological warfare or nuclear terrorism then I think that locking up 70 innocent people until their position is established to save thousands, hundreds of thousands is justified.

The vague nature of "extreme measures" in interrogation may be used to snooker anybody that answers A. I will stipulate that physical torture is excluded from interrogation with the single exception of an iminent terrorist attack in the works and a known, identified with independent evidence individual with details of the plot in a ticking time bomb situation. Even then it is non-scarring, non-lethal and intensely painful method that can be stopped at any time (that new emitter that stimulated nerve clusters under the skin would be the ideal device, it only stimulated pain receptors and doesnt actually do damage). Other than that single and unlikely situation where I think the ends justify the means standard procedure can begin, as the pool of suspects is narrowed there may be room for stronger interrogation techniques but not extending up to physical torture, beatings or severe mental torture.

Better to have ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be locked up is weighted by the nature and magnitude of the threat. Petty criminals and murders could steal, maybe kill a few tens of people - tops. But if we are talking jihadists with a plot in the works the magnitude could extend all the way into the thousands and if given the opportunity and devices millions.

Determination of situation should be simple if they truly are innocent people, but things are not ever so simple, the type of people who are hanging out in a building with AQ operatives may fall into the grey and that takes a lot more care to clear up. Look at those released from Guantanamo without charge, they are almost without exception Islamists who were in Afghanistan after the US went in operating with the Taliban or in AQ training (which can also he LET in Pakistan) ~ they are high risk individuals and establishing what they were doing in that region with those characters and if they pose a threat or are involved is very dificult.

I hope that those that pick 'B' out of fine moral conviction would also accept the concequences of such action in the event that terrific violence is inflicted on many innocent people as a result of their decision - but that in terms of a thought experiment is unbound and far too difficult to get a straight answer about.

I am more than willing to accept that some very dangerous individuals walk freely and slip under surveilance radar, but that in itself does not mean you should willfully surrender people that intend to do damage (again, what scale?) just because there are other people out there that do.

On a side note I would extend furthur legal representation to these individuals and allow oversight of human rights by NGO's like the ICRC, the situations surrounding this dilemma are unprecidented and the only approximations we have go back over 60 years agp to how spies were treated during WW2. I think that it is disengenous to declare that it is always better to let the guilty party go free when the stakes could be so high.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 08:54 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Where is this building? what nation, what is the political situation of that country, are they to be extradited to US custody? are they all to be ferried off to Guantanamo? Are they arrested in the United States (in which case their legal status is different and they should not be trafficked off overseas)?

Are we arresting 10 AQ members and 70 islamists who are not connected to any plot? is it 10 AQ members and 70 teachers and journalists? Are all those captured Muslms and if so do they adhere to more fundamentalist religious practices (being a fundamentalist does not make you a terrorist by default, but Islamist terrorists are almost without exception fundamentalists)?

Do we know that they are innocent people? how do we know that 70 of them are innocent? that is sure as hell a lot simpler than the situation that we have now and I think that knowledge would expedite the processing of their status.

What is the threshold? if this is a plot with biological warfare or nuclear terrorism then I think that locking up 70 innocent people until their position is established to save thousands, hundreds of thousands is justified.

The vague nature of "extreme measures" in interrogation may be used to snooker anybody that answers A. I will stipulate that physical torture is excluded from interrogation with the single exception of an iminent terrorist attack in the works and a known, identified with independent evidence individual with details of the plot in a ticking time bomb situation. Even then it is non-scarring, non-lethal and intensely painful method that can be stopped at any time (that new emitter that stimulated nerve clusters under the skin would be the ideal device, it only stimulated pain receptors and doesnt actually do damage). Other than that single and unlikely situation where I think the ends justify the means standard procedure can begin, as the pool of suspects is narrowed there may be room for stronger interrogation techniques but not extending up to physical torture, beatings or severe mental torture.

Better to have ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be locked up is weighted by the nature and magnitude of the threat. Petty criminals and murders could steal, maybe kill a few tens of people - tops. But if we are talking jihadists with a plot in the works the magnitude could extend all the way into the thousands and if given the opportunity and devices millions.

Determination of situation should be simple if they truly are innocent people, but things are not ever so simple, the type of people who are hanging out in a building with AQ operatives may fall into the grey and that takes a lot more care to clear up. Look at those released from Guantanamo without charge, they are almost without exception Islamists who were in Afghanistan after the US went in operating with the Taliban or in AQ training (which can also he LET in Pakistan) ~ they are high risk individuals and establishing what they were doing in that region with those characters and if they pose a threat or are involved is very dificult.

I hope that those that pick 'B' out of fine moral conviction would also accept the concequences of such action in the event that terrific violence is inflicted on many innocent people as a result of their decision - but that in terms of a thought experiment is unbound and far too difficult to get a straight answer about.

I am more than willing to accept that some very dangerous individuals walk freely and slip under surveilance radar, but that in itself does not mean you should willfully surrender people that intend to do damage (again, what scale?) just because there are other people out there that do.

On a side note I would extend furthur legal representation to these individuals and allow oversight of human rights by NGO's like the ICRC, the situations surrounding this dilemma are unprecidented and the only approximations we have go back over 60 years agp to how spies were treated during WW2. I think that it is disengenous to declare that it is always better to let the guilty party go free when the stakes could be so high.
i think you meant to say:

A.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 08:58 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Unbound I support both A and B, because it is situation dependent.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-04-2005, 09:04 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:52 AM
there is no clean answer

you want to have controls so you can feel your decision is correct
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com