a crossover thread.

[Gnostic Yevon]

sasquatch i hate to tell you that buying a nuclear bomb is rather difficult these days. you know with most of the world thinking that putting up a nuclear weapons store next to wal-mart is a little bit silly. if they ever did get hold of one from buying it would be in the form of a missle or bomb as this is how all nuclear weapons are made. now if you want to explain to be how you get a nuclear bomb or missle system into the us without anyone raising an eyebrow at it then yes you may be in trouble. this is of course if terrorists can find such a country to buy it from, afford it and convert it til a useable weapon without it sticking out like a sore thumb.

dirty bombs on the other hand..... have debateable usefullness. which we can discuss if you want but i'll leave it at that for now.

and no i don't believe in torturing an innocent man. sorry if that makes me crazy but you know.... just something i feel uneasy about.

No actually there's a ready supply of nuclear weapons and parts plus pre manufactured plutonium in the Former Soviet Union. The problem is that the people guarding it get about 100x more to sell these weapons and parts then they could get by guarding them. A Russian guard or nuclear scientist who is having trouble making ends meet legally would probably sell those weapons or help other rogue nations or terrorist groups if they get offered 1000 times more than they would get from a bankrupt government.

Secondly, the amount of plutonium needed to make a nuke is pretty small -- about the size of a grapefruit. That would actually be pretty easy to sneak across a border. Getting the rest of the parts may be slightly harder, but if you have a person or a group with the money and the desire, it's 100% duable to set off a nuke.

As far as you feeling uneasy about torturing people. Yeah I do too. I hate that such things must happen, but the truth is that in some cases it's the only way to prevent a worse disaster from happening. I'd rather have one person tortured than 1000 die. Now if it's just randomly torturing A-rabs who have long beards or something like that, I'd be against it. We should have strict rules about the conditions under which torture can be used.

My rules would be:
1.) you have to be reasonably sure that the person you will torture is actually guilty. To that end, I'd say at least a modified court martial type procedure with a US millitary appointed lawyer for the defendant.

2.) you'd have to convince a military judge that there is good reason to suspect that a terrorist attack is imminant and that the person that you wish to try to torture information from actually knows what you need to know.

3.) Once you get what you need and it proves accurate, the torture stops. It doesn't make sense to keep beating a guy after he talks. And should the person require treatment, he should get it.

It seems like that is the only way to balance the two goals of protecting the human rights of the prisonors and protecting the civillian population from bombs going off in their neighborhoods possibly killing thousands of people. It has to be balanced though.

[Sasquatch]

Cloud 9 -- As Gnostic Yevon says, it's not nearly as hard as you think it is to buy a nuclear weapon. (By the way, it wouldn't be in the form of a missile or bomb, it would be in the form of a warhead. And a nuclear warhead could be no bigger than your torso.) Getting it into the U.S. wouldn't be too much of a problem, they'd simply either have to break it down to core components and transport them seperately to re-assemble it inside the States, or they could slip it through one of our extremely porous borders.

Gnostic Yevon -- While I do agree with your post, your "rules" concerning the validation of the use of torture could cause some problems. In #2, you mention that you'd have to convince a military judge that there's good reason to suspect an imminent terrorist attack. If a terrorist attack is imminent, should we be spending time on courts marshall and other court proceedings, convincing people left and right that it should be done? Of course, we should be as sure as possible about the accuracy of the information we could extract from the suspect, but, simply put, s*** happens. Nobody wants innocent people to be subjected to cruel interrogation techniques, but I would rather 1, or 10, or 100 innocent men be tortured than be partially responsible for the loss of thousands of lives.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Gnostic Yevon -- While I do agree with your post, your "rules" concerning the validation of the use of torture could cause some problems. In #2, you mention that you'd have to convince a military judge that there's good reason to suspect an imminent terrorist attack. If a terrorist attack is imminent, should we be spending time on courts marshall and other court proceedings, convincing people left and right that it should be done? Of course, we should be as sure as possible about the accuracy of the information we could extract from the suspect, but, simply put, s*** happens. Nobody wants innocent people to be subjected to cruel interrogation techniques, but I would rather 1, or 10, or 100 innocent men be tortured than be partially responsible for the loss of thousands of lives.

Well, I wasn't necessarily talking about a trial, just some sort of procedure so that it doesn't turn into the standard excuse. Without some sort of controls, I fear that "immenant threat" would be called anytime a person decides they want to torture a suspect, or if a person gets caught doing so. The problem is that without controls on the torture of suspects, I could technically beat up anybody in a prison, and then later say that "it was to prevent a terrorist attack". Such things happen regularly in dictatorships.

Now, you are right that it's better to not be going though a month long court trial if the bomb is already planted somewhere. But I think there would be enough time to go to a Millitary Judge and say "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." In other words, the standard should be somewhere lower than a search warrant. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm not even asking that they use a full court trial or give him a lawyer to defend himself.

[Cloud No.9]

but you cannot say you know. i will always go back to moazzam begg. the US said they knew he was an active al-qaeda memeber and a highly dangerous man, and they tortured him then let him go. sitting him in front of a kangaroo court changes nothing. you were sure then so making sure you are sure now makes no difference to that. sitting in front of a judge in a kangaroo court changes very little.

and torture acheives nothing, look at sandy mitchell, sentences to crucifiction and partial beheading in saudi arabia for a crime that he was tortured into confessing to. so an innocent man will plead guilty. and the guilty man... will tell you anything so long as it isn't the truth "so you say the bomb is washington, good glad to get that out of you, lets head to washington. boom goes new york, las vegas, disney land, somewhere else that isn't washington. torture supposedly works because people will say anything to make it stop. that's the problem, an innocent man will plead guilty and the guilty man will plead guilty to a different crime. it saves noone.

[Gnostic Yevon]

but you cannot say you know. i will always go back to moazzam begg. the US said they knew he was an active al-qaeda memeber and a highly dangerous man, and they tortured him then let him go. sitting him in front of a kangaroo court changes nothing. you were sure then so making sure you are sure now makes no difference to that. sitting in front of a judge in a kangaroo court changes very little.

A millitary court martial is not a "kangaroo court". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial There are established rules and procedures for dealing with criminal offenses. now, even with streamlining a few of the procedures, the courts aren't just going to run around randomly convicting people of being terrorists for "Driving While Arab".

You keep ignoring the security issues. There are plenty of reasons that a terrorist suspect should not be tried by a regular court. Firstly, he could use the discovery process (which allows defendants to see evidence gathered against them and how it was collected) to find out what measures the FBI/CIA/US Special Forces are using to catch them. If they use their lawyer to send that info to another terrorist, then all we've done is make Al-Qaida better able to prevent detection.

Secondly, there would be threats to the Judge himself or other court officials, meaning that the lives of every person in that courtroom would be at risk. If a single untrained suspect can get hold of a gun and shoot a judge (and I think the court reporter too), what exactly do you think a terrorist trained in firearms could do with the same weapon?

Thirdly, there is a time-crunch issue. The longer it takes to try and convict a high level terrorist, the more likely it is that whatever plan he hatched will be carried out before the trial is over. And it isn't like we can get any intelligence before he is convicted, as his lawyer will be sitting in the questioning room telling him not to answer the questions. If the attack is a major one, that is a serious handicap to law enforcement's ability to save lives.

and torture acheives nothing, look at sandy mitchell, sentences to crucifiction and partial beheading in saudi arabia for a crime that he was tortured into confessing to. so an innocent man will plead guilty. and the guilty man... will tell you anything so long as it isn't the truth "so you say the bomb is washington, good glad to get that out of you, lets head to washington. boom goes new york, las vegas, disney land, somewhere else that isn't washington. torture supposedly works because people will say anything to make it stop. that's the problem, an innocent man will plead guilty and the guilty man will plead guilty to a different crime. it saves noone.

Torture should be a last ditch effort anyway. And if there's no other way to find out what you need to know, I'd rather take the chance even if it wasn't a sure bet. But the thing is that the cops will probably already know more than they tell the guy, so if they know it's East Coast, and he says Los Angeles, they'll know it's a lie.

[Cloud No.9]

it would be a kangarro court if like you said all you needed to do was to say to the judge "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." and he would grant you permission. you would need evidence of involvment, proof that an attack is immenient, that means the usual m.m.o. and if he is treated in the same way as prisoners in cuba then he would not be granted a lawyer.

why in the first place are people here defending one of the must inhumane crimes imaginable? one that can't work and is illegal?

[Sasquatch]

So what? We already know that you disagree with anything and everything the United States of America does and stands for, so what's the point in listening to you any further? Kangaroo court or not, we can't wait for the entire world to give us permission to protect our own citizens, it's that simple.

Why are you standing up for terrorists, who commit one of the most inhumane crimes imagineable, one that targets innocent civilians and is illegal, against discomfort by a power that wants to protect its civilian populace?

[Gnostic Yevon]

So what? We already know that you disagree with anything and everything the United States of America does and stands for, so what's the point in listening to you any further? Kangaroo court or not, we can't wait for the entire world to give us permission to protect our own citizens, it's that simple.

Why are you standing up for terrorists, who commit one of the most inhumane crimes imagineable, one that targets innocent civilians and is illegal, against discomfort by a power that wants to protect its civilian populace?

First off, he never said that he opposes everything America wants to do to defend itself, and secondly, he's never said anything to make me think that he supports terrorism. We have a difference of opinion reguarding the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo bay. That's it. I think he's a bit nieve as to how the real world works, but I don't think that is equivelent to hating America or cheering on al-qaida.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly. What I think probably happens is that the suspect goes to a millitary tribunal, and evidence is presented. (I'm not sure but I thought there were three judges at this phase of the trial.)

it would be a kangarro court if like you said all you needed to do was to say to the judge "we know that there's a bomb planted somewhere in the USA. We know that this prisoner is in al-qaida." and he would grant you permission.

What I was referring to would only happen after the suspect was convicted of being in al-qaida. And you're still ignoring that the bomb is already planted somewhere in the USA. That little fact changes things quite a bit in my mind. The requirements would be slightly less than getting a warrent, and no proof of the guy's being in al-qaida would be needed, because it had already been established by the tribunal. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my initial post, and if so I appologize.

[Cloud No.9]

sasquatch i am standing up for terrorists. you wanna know why? because i haven't been deprived of the idea of humanity. i see a terrorist as a human being not a piece of meat to throw against a wall because you suspect or even know he is a terrorist. i would happily stand up and defend any man against cruelty no matter what his crime.

gnostic yevon - so if you had a new suspect in custody who you suspect of being behind a planted bomb do you have to prove him a member of al-qaeda first? or just presume and carry on as if he has had a trial? saying yes to this is treating an unproven man as guilty and is unsound. and does being a member of al-qaeda automatically take away your human rights? suddenly a guilty verdict deems you sub-human and not covered anymore?

you cannot defend one the most disgusting crimes with a guilty verdict.

[Sasquatch]

Gnostic Yevon--hate to say it, but "I told you so."

Cloud 9, you would rather the "rights" of a known terrorist be protected, against torture, discomfort, even humiliation (which you so wrongly think is a breach of human rights), than thousands of innocent civilian lives be saved by the information that the terrorist or terrorist suspect has?

[Gnostic Yevon]

gnostic yevon - so if you had a new suspect in custody who you suspect of being behind a planted bomb do you have to prove him a member of al-qaeda first? or just presume and carry on as if he has had a trial? saying yes to this is treating an unproven man as guilty and is unsound. and does being a member of al-qaeda automatically take away your human rights? suddenly a guilty verdict deems you sub-human and not covered anymore?

you cannot defend one the most disgusting crimes with a guilty verdict.

I'm not defending torture just on the fact that the man is guilty. I'm defending based on the fact that he is guilty AND the fact that the cops know that he knows where the bomb is. I'm placing discomfort of one guy verses the lives of up to 1000.

[Tama2]

Torture has its ups and downs you know. It can save many lives. But it can just be used to find info about something that doesn't justify the means. Either way it is still good to find an alterantive way of getting info. But I think that won't happen until the future where we can read thoughts through computers or something crazy like that.

[Cloud No.9]

your breaking your won argument on two accounts. first of all you call it "discomfort" which i belive to be false but anyway.

if we are talking a hardened terrorist is he really going to give into discomfort? or is he going to bide his time and let it pat. his duty is far more inportant than comfort.

so you would need to seek more extreme measures (shaky ground here) at this point discomfort becomes torture and so is totally illegal, inhuman and beyond all moral code. so now you are torturing a humkan being, you are puting him through enough pain to get you to stop. so he's going to tell you anything, truth or lie, innocence or guilt.

there is no lin in torture at which point you can say "at this point he will tell us the truth and not lie or hold back information" there is line between pain and discomfort and both don't gain anything.

i find it very hard to defend a system which is both evil and doesn't and can't possibly work. it's torture for torture's sake.

[T-MaN]

Either way it is still good to find an alterantive way of getting info. But I think that won't happen until the future where we can read thoughts through computers or something crazy like that.

Now that'll be pretty cool until everyone can read anyone's thoughts. Trust me, that won't be cool. Especially, if you knew what was going on in my head...*hmmm* StRaWbErRy FuDgE iCe CrEaM...

[Sasquatch]

I call it "discomfort" because the "torture" that the United States is using is simply that--discomfort and inconvenience. Sleep deprivation? Dealt with it. It sucks. Monotonous audio? Ditto. It sucks too. Humiliation? Same thing. Everything the U.S. puts its terrorist suspects through, MANY more people have been through it, and most likely to a larger extent--it's called military combat training. You take somebody that's just been through the last two weeks of U.S. Army Ranger School and make them a prisoner in Gitmo, and it'll be a walk in the park.

There is no proof at all that tortured prisoners will say "anything" to make the torture stop--history has shown that if the guy doesn't know anything, that might be the case, but if he does, torture will get it out of him. And again, we're not just talking about grabbing somebody up off the street, this is for people who we know are involved, and we've already gotten legal permission to "interrogate" him.

You still haven't answered my question. Here, I'll just repost it word-for-word.

"Cloud 9, you would rather the "rights" of a known terrorist be protected, against torture, discomfort, even humiliation (which you so wrongly think is a breach of human rights), than thousands of innocent civilian lives be saved by the information that the terrorist or terrorist suspect has?"
(In other words, which is more important, a terrorist not being tortured, or thousands of lives being saved? It's a yes-or-no question.)