India to terrorists: Resistance is futile

Vee have vays of making you talk. Like making you eat your faworite ice cream wery wery fast!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Democracy snobs - those supremacists who don't celebrate the diversity of other peoples and cultures, and who think the US can preach at the world about how things should be - won't like how the world's largest democracy is dealing with a captured Islamist terrorist.

But just as we can learn from Mexico about sound immigration policy, India has some things to show us about how to protect a democracy under attack.

The Times of London reports that Indian authorities, using their country's accepted police practices and laws, will conduct "narcoanalysis" on the sole known surviving terrorist involved in last week's murderous rampage in Mumbai. The practice involves administering a harmless "truth serum" to help establish the facts.

"Advanced" democracies like the US and UK once had the same practice, but no longer do, so they are better than everyone else, the thinking goes among post-democracy elites. Better to set terrorists free to kill our citizens yet again, than risk hurting the terrorists' feelings or poking them with a medical needle.

But there's good news on the other side of the world: An Indian police official says that the narcoanalysis is working like a fabled Hindu charm. About the terrorist, the official tells the Times, "He resisted at first, but soon he began to talk. We have our techniques, but we don't disclose our tactics."

Criticize India all you want about how it handled the Mumbai terrorist incident before and during the attack. But India doesn't have Miranda Rights and it doesn't need them. It has its own techniques to preserve its democracy. We should not be so chauvinistic against other democratic cultures. India certainly has a lot of answers to our counterterrorism dilemmas. Its methods send a signal that, unlike in America where mass-murdering terrorists can count on American trial lawyers to fight for their freedom, resistance in India is futile.

That's an important political message to send the world.

Perhaps the US can persuade India to host Club Gitmo before the Center for Constitutional Rights, Levick Strategic Communications and other enemy agents get Washington to set more Guantanamo-based terrorists free.

http://www.politicalwarfare.org/

Looks like my favorite cocktail mixer is working. Anyone want to defend this guy's "civil rights?"

Not a change. He has no rights. As far as I am concerned he should not be classed as a human being, merely property of the state.

Torture is pointless as the answers are forthcoming to stop the pain. Reducing people's ability to lie is completely different - although of course the answers should not be taken as gospel.

The problem here is that India doesn't have convenient bases overseas where they can ignore all laws, unlike "Advanced" Democracies such as the US.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Looks like my favorite cocktail mixer is working. Anyone want to defend this guy's "civil rights?"

---

I can't say the urge to do so is overwhelming, no. But the danger of curtailing civil rights in the interests of short-term expediency is that we lose sight of the bigger picture, and what begins as an exceptional measure eventually becomes routine. If police powers originally introduced with the stated intent of only being used in the most serious terrorism cases are five years later being used to arrest opposition MPs for obtaining leaked government documents, how can we have any confidence that the use of such "truth serums" would not be similarly abused?

I heard that Truth Serums are good for them terrorists. Makes them want to socialize a lot. I like when they socialize.

Ok, only people indiscrimnately shooting at police and civilians with AK-53's and using grenades can have truth serum used on them...

I understand the "thin end of the wedge" but I feel there's plenty of wiggle room here.

~:smoking:

If these clowns were supposed to be a special forces resistance is futile indeed.

I don’t get it, are you saying that it is ok to forget their human rights and that what India is doing is good or that India should be extending more rights to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I don’t get it, are you saying that it is ok to forget their human rights and that what India is doing is good or that India should be extending more rights to them?

---

It's not about what I'm saying, but about you.

Anyone who’s seen the abomination called “The Good Sheppard” should remember the scene where (a character looosly based on Nosenko) was given LSD to make him fess up. He ends up going on a “bad trip” out the window after a rant about teh eval military industrial complex. :hippie:

In India, the old standby sodium penethol is being used.

I report, you decide. :clown:

I think the Indian authorities should try the "If you continue being naughty, you'll get a lump of coal for Christmas" interrogaton tactic or maybe the warm milk and cookies treatment the the ACLU and many members on this board want the US to employ with our own misunderstood Islamic jihadists...

Lol @ "advanced democracies".

Lol @ "they're not human beings because they did very bad things".

Lol @ "putting people on acid trips can produce valuable counter-terrorism info".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Lol @ "putting people on acid trips can produce valuable counter-terrorism info".

---

Acid has been used a lot in psychiatry. Was frowned upon later but when people don't understand what's going on they are likely to tell the truth if only for a point of reference to hold onto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Acid has been used a lot in psychiatry. Was frowned upon later but when people don't understand what's going on they are likely to tell the truth if only for a point of reference to hold onto.

---

I too find it entertaining to listen to alcoholics and potheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I too find it entertaining to listen to alcoholics and potheads.

---

Using acid is really the same as denying someone sleep, nothing is scarier then losing your mind, being denied to sleep does that to you, and so does acid. People hold on to what they know, the consequences of talking becomes less important. It works.

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

Well if they are part of a bigger scheme they are either the stupid ones, or the really fanatical, both shouldn't be too hard get yapping when pressing the right buttons, especially while under the influence of acid. I don't know if you ever used acid but you aren't thinking clearly, he thought he did the right thing, stupid/fanatic -> be smarter/humiliate. That sounds bad but humiliation is only as bad as it is in the eye of the beholder, wouldn't feel that bad about destroying their self-image, why would I if their madness is a tool then use it. Don't get the revenge part of your post, how does giving him a little acid equal what has happened, it is a pretty disgusting thing that went on there, people have been tortured and killed without no reason at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

That’s what you have to do to get *anything* useful out of *any* interrogation. You subject the information received under serum to the same processes which yielded your “solid and effective intelligence.” Your logic is elliptical (almost circular :clown: ).

Yes drugging is a quick, crude, and dirty technique which *can* work. “Torture” ‘works’ as well (I don’t care what some people say); but is quicker, cruder, and dirtier than drugging. Quite often it is the refuge of the desperate who lack the time, temperament, and/or talent to conduct a proper interrogation. Not that I advocate such tactics, but I see the merits. Desperate times call for desperate needs; but do you want to be that desperate? What is necessary to avoid this situation? (rhetorical)

When so much is potentially at stake who can fault anyone for such actions?

I'm against torture, and I see forcefully administering drugs as such. That said, if they limit it to people like this, halting it isn't on top of my "to do" list.

India may not be my first choice, but I'd rather live there than in certain neighbouring countries :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

Are you sure torture doesn't yield results?

I have always learned that everybody will break under torture. Whether via drugs or physical enhanced interrogation. Me, I break already after my girlfriend plucks out two nosehairs with a pair of tweezers, and will publicly confess to everybody within shouting distance that I am Napoleon after just three beers.

Never mind what professionals could achieve. Wouldn't layered questioning and narrative traps combined with enhanced interogation techniques yield the best results? The two don't exclude each other.

I think there is a fair bit of wishful thinking involved in the argument that torture doesn't work. That it is invoked whenever the human rights argument seems to fail. (Adrian always insisted as well that torture doesn't work)

No method of interrogation, torturous or otherwise, is ever going to be completely effective. There are too many inherent limitations.

Does the subject really know what's going on? What they have been told is true and what they emphatically believe to be the case, may actually be incorrect. They will still reveal this "truth" under any form of interrogation. This is why detectives search so avidly for physical evidence -- what people see/know may or may not be in tune with what is the case.

Does the subject distort their answers to try to please the listener? If your lady-love asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" your answer may not be prompted by anything aside from a desire to avoid the potential for discomfort. This is one of the classic arguments against torture -- that any information is likely to be tainted by the tortured's desire to "please" his tormentors.

Does the method of interrogation itself run the risk of distorting or destroying the information? No drug performs the same in each and every subject. Suppose the medication wipes the memory you're trying to pry loose? Torture can cripple the subject's ability to communicate or kill them before they can answer anything.


However, with that important caveat, human history teaches us that interrogators can, eventually, break down almost anyone and get them to "talk." All sorts of methods work, some faster than others -- but most procedures which accelarate the pace at which a subject "breaks" carry greater risks that the information sought will be destroyed or distorted in some fashion. On a practical level, any interrogator has to assess just how important the timeliness of information acquisition is, recognizing the increased risks to securing that information that may be posed.

Morality approaches the whole thing on a different level, which I have set aside for this answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Are you sure torture doesn't yield results?

---

It yields results, just not very useful ones - unless you count the destruction of liberties and standards that have been fought for over centuries and that define us as civilised. If you count giving terrorism the victory it craves by proving us as animal as they, it yields results.

Seamus makes a powerfully reasoned argument. Getting someone to talk is easy - getting them to reveal useful facts is very hard, especially if they are telling you anything and everything. It takes a very well-drilled suspect to consciously counter facts, half-truths and counter-testimonies. Their clear-headed attempts to do so can be exploited - drug or pain addled responses cannot be connected.

There is no need to resort to torture/truth serums and suchlike because the necessity of proving the rambling thus obtained through better and more objective intelligence actually takes longer. One gains naught but vengeance through such methods.

Louis, the human rights argument never fails. It is not wishful thinking to argue that torture doesn't work. By its very nature, its use betrays everything civilisation stands for, so it doesn't work because its use destroys us, let alone the practical uselessness.

Brutalizing brutalizes the brutalizer.

And yields info of grey-value, at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Not a change. He has no rights. As far as I am concerned he should not be classed as a human being, merely property of the state.

---

I heard the same applies to jews, as far as certain people were concerned anyway.

I don't really see what's bad about a harmless truth serum, if people would lie less, how is that a bad thing?

at home: "Darling, do you think I'm fat?" - "Oh yes, very much so!"

illegal police interviews: "So how much is on your bank account that we could have, sir?" - "Minus 3521 dollars, good luck!"

politicians: "So how many of your promises do you think you can keep?" - "I don't know of any promises, but if you are talking about my lies..."

pirates: "How many illegally downloaded ships do you have on your personal home port?" - "A whole lot, just last week I torrented a merchant with ukrainian tanks in the cargo bay."

etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I heard the same applies to jews, as far as certain people were concerned anyway.

---

When were Jews running around with grenades, shooting indiscriminately? I missed that on the news!

Or were you drawing comparisons between two completely different things?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When were Jews running around with grenades, shooting indiscriminately? I missed that on the news!

---

Oh, according to the people who thought like this they were doing even worse things, the question is whether anything justifies not seeing a human as a human, what good are human rights that apply universally when you can just circumvent them by calling people non-human according to standards you invented? Now it's people running around with grenades shooting people indiscriminately, next year it's anyone owning a gun and ten years later it's everybody with a firewall on their PC that shuts the government out and of course all those animals eating these disgusting cookies that a human would never touch. :dizzy2:

Good old "thin end of the wedge" argument again, eh? Good to see how logically one can link gunning down people on camera to having a firewall.

It's fair to say that Germans can walk down this path a long way. I don't think that a similar event will lead form this. War with Pakistan is far more likely.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Good old "thin end of the wedge" argument again, eh? Good to see how logically one can link gunning down people on camera to having a firewall.

---

I wasn't linking it and I thought it was called the slippery slope argument but if you like to stop calling humans non-humans to circumvent human rights, go ahead, but it doesn't make you any better in my book.

“

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think there is a fair bit of wishful thinking involved in the argument that torture doesn't work

”
It doesn’t work always. Torture was used in Algeria and it did work in Algiers. However the price to pay was very high, politically and on human values which we are supposed to represent.
People will talk, but are you sure it will be the truth. Feed the enemies with what they expect to find and you will be ok.
Ex: A secret agent parachuted in occupied France caught by the Germans had always a double story e.g. I am a black marketer, then when confronted with his mistakes (eventually) said he was in fact living with a older woman and lived on her money, reason why he lied. The German got an answer according what they thought about the French and job done…
The fear of torture can as well prevent you to get what you want like this “I don’t remember his name not Delestrain the other one” jumping over the balcony with the 2 SS guards and
Then, in this case what serum or torture will provide we don’t know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I think the Indian authorities should try the "If you continue being naughty, you'll get a lump of coal for Christmas" interrogaton tactic or maybe the warm milk and cookies treatment the the ACLU and many members on this board want the US to employ with our own misunderstood Islamic jihadists...

---

You know most experienced intellegence people say that somewhat "kinder" methods work much better then anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Louis, the human rights argument never fails. It is not wishful thinking to argue that torture doesn't work. By its very nature, its use betrays everything civilisation stands for, so it doesn't work because its use destroys us, let alone the practical uselessness.

---

I'm afraid I was a bit sloppy. With 'whenever the human rights argument fails' I meant something like 'whenever the argument falls on deaf ears'.

Let me divide your arguments into three: a) Torture doesn't yield better results, b) torture destroys a democracy, drags it down along a path to the level of its opponents, c) torture shuldn't be used because of human rights.

I agree that torture shouldn't be used by civilised societies. C is a sufficient argument for me. Me debating B and C are for the sake of argument itself, and for the problem that if they do not hold, the case against torture is undermined. If the debate about torture centers around 'it does/it doesn't work', and it is shown that torture can, in fact, yield results virtually unobtainable in another way, then we have a problem.
Just as in a similar fashion, rock-solid arguments about the intrinsic value of the natural world and the unsustainability of our society are constantly undermined by excessive claims about cuddly Polar bears being on the brink of extinction because of global warming.


I agree with C. I have some reservations about B. I still doubt A:
Seamus and Brenus make some excellent points. In an indirect way, in my previous post I tried to argue that it wouldn't take a whole lot for me to confess to being Napoleon.
Torture is not the best interogation technique. Maybe the use of torture will on the whole provide even provide worse intelligence. Nonetheless, I still think there are instances where it will yield results that are next to impossible to achieve otherwise. Six youths burglared a house here last week. Five were caught, after being recognised. They insist to the police that they have absolutely no clue who the sixth person is. I bet I could beat the name out of them remarkably quickly. Also, all of the pitfalls, all of the clever counter techniques, all of the false confessions, of torture, do not vanish with normal interrogation. When applied smartly and prudently, I think torture can yield excellent intelligence.

Quote:

---

Torture was used in Algeria and it did work in Algiers.

---

It did indeed, and at too great a cost, in a win a battle to lose the war kind of way. But it did provide intelligence which would probably not have been obtained through other means.


Argument B, or 'Brutalizing brutalizes the brutalizer'.
But can democracies not be undermined by crime, destabilised by terrorism, threatened by violence as well? A democracy shouldn't firebomb cities anymore than it uses torture. Nonetheless, there are instances where bombing your enemy will yield a positive net result for the preservation of democracy.
The 'ticking bomb' scenario is often invoken in this regard. Let's apply it to Mumbay. The terrorist attacks lasted days. What if one terrorist was caught alive not after, but during the attacks? Use smart interrogation techniques to catch inconsistencies in his information? Or use any means at your disposal to retrieve information? Unless it is conclusively proven that torture will never yield useful information, I am not sure abstaining from torture for the sake of preserving democratic stability is a strong argument when a grave terrorist assault can undermine democratic stability even moreso.


Which really leaves me only with argument C. A democracy is founded upon the inalieable sanctity of all human beings. Torture has no place in it.

So in this case the suggested application is not to retrieve "vital" intelligence , neither is it considered reliable as a means of gathering information , it is banned in other countries for medical as well as ethical and practical reasons ....
So does anyone want to defend Indias nonsense ?
Or perhaps someone might like to claim that Waller isn't a conspiracy nut who makes crazy claims and invents quotes for use in his blogs .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I wasn't linking it and I thought it was called the slippery slope argument but if you like to stop calling humans non-humans to circumvent human rights, go ahead, but it doesn't make you any better in my book.

---

People have rights - bit IMO linked to responsibilities. Since he has broken the former, he's lost the latter.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

People have rights - bit IMO linked to responsibilities. Since he has broken the former, he's lost the latter.

---

So you are either saying that if people commit crimes they lose all rights or if people do not fulfill their responsibilities they are not people .
Either way you are talking crazy .
Since you have said in the past that you want to leave Britain might I suggest that you move to Saudi Arabia or possibly Afghanistan once the Taliban return as your views would feel right at home there .

He gave up his rights in my opinion. And it looks like he is singing now.

Quote:

---

BG: Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

Interrogated someone recently?

Quote:

---

He gave up his rights in my opinion.

---

Even Hitler would have had rights if he was arrested after the war so it doesn't say much for your opinion .

Quote:

---

And it looks like he is singing now.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The Indians said the serum was being administered to establish his identity , they already knew who he was and where he came from:dizzy2: the only new information they have come up with is two names who they arrested for helping in facilitating the attack before promptly releasing one as he was working for Indian intelligence all along and another name who had previously been arrested and was under surveilance for months .
Not a very good result is it :oops:

Quote:

---

Interrogated someone recently?

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
BG has retired from that anti terrorist sort of thing , so I doubt he has recently interrogated anyone .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Even Hitler would have had rights if he was arrested after the war so it doesn't say much for your opinion.

---

Neither yours. Considering the whitewash the post war trials were with the "Democratic" countries giving the death penalties with little if any evidence. He'd have been shot.

Not a good result, no. I guess they should have known this before they started... :inquisitive:

Who says breaking the law looses you all rights? Well... you did - and then attributed it to me.

At the risk of joining your two personalities in the argument I would say that there would be a fine gradient. His actions place him firmly at one end of that gradient.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Even Hitler would have had rights if he was arrested after the war so it doesn't say much for your opinion .

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The Indians said the serum was being administered to establish his identity , they already knew who he was and where he came from:dizzy2: the only new information they have come up with is two names who they arrested for helping in facilitating the attack before promptly releasing one as he was working for Indian intelligence all along and another name who had previously been arrested and was under surveilance for months .
Not a very good result is it :oops:


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
BG has retired from that anti terrorist sort of thing , so I doubt he has recently interrogated anyone .

---

I noted it was my opinion simply for that reason. There is no need to attack it. Not to mention, rory brings up a good point about said "rights" that were given after the war.

Whether the serum is what caused him to talk or not I do not know, but I do know he's been talking since he was captured about the entire operation including goals (to kill upwards of 5,000 and how to do it), why things didn't work (Taj exterior was too thick), as well as much more info than his name and where he came from.

My question was a serious one intended to question the validity of BG's claims. If he is retired from anti-terrorist organizations then they are more valid, while if not...

Quote:

---

Considering the whitewash the post war trials were with the "Democratic" countries giving the death penalties with little if any evidence. He'd have been shot.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Oh dear Rory :dizzy2:, might I suggest that you study any small portion of the overwhelming evidence presented at the war crimes trials before you say something so dumb again , hey you can even restrict yourself to evidence in the cases where there was death sentences rather than the piles of evidence where the defendant was just jailed or aquitted . Perhaps start with the 22 rather large volumes in the British Blue set then you can go on to the Red set , perhaps try the minute by minute account of the 216 court sessions of evidence from a single trial at Nizkhor just for fun :book:

Quote:

---

Who says breaking the law looses you all rights? Well... you did - and then attributed it to me.

---

Errrrr ......No rory

Quote:

---

People have rights - bit IMO linked to responsibilities. Since he has broken the former, he's lost the latter.

---

see its simple language from your own country , do you somehow not understand it ?

Well, what rory is actually saying there is that since he broke the rights, he lost the responsibilities but since I made a big mistake in my last or second to last post as well I'm willing to overlook it. ~;)
Doesn't mean I agree with it though, indulging in barbarism to fight barbarians does not make you any less barbaric which in turn makes you look stupid when you complain about their barbarism. :dizzy2:

Ah I see what you are saying Husar , you think that as he broke the responsibilities he lost the rights that go with those responsibilities , thats fair enough I am in total agreement , but that isn't what Rory is saying .........

Quote:

---

He has no rights.

---

....which is bollox , even the worst scumbag in the world still has some rights because distasteful as it may seem they are still human , which is why Rory with his approach of.....

Quote:

---

As far as I am concerned he should not be classed as a human being

---

....is so fundamentally flawed and as you noted .....

Quote:

---

I heard the same applies to jews

---

...which is a bit sharp but it certainly cuts to the point .
So if you take that and tie it with his rather strange....

Quote:

---

When were Jews running around with grenades, shooting indiscriminately? I missed that on the news!

---

.....then look at an example like Baruch Goldstein where a freak went round killing indiscriminately claiming he was doing it in the name of his religion it comes up with the strange judicial verdict that even though he had been shooting indiscriminately his death was still legally murder , because even though his actions would lose him many of his rights he still had some rights .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh dear Rory :dizzy2:, might I suggest that you study any small portion of the overwhelming evidence presented at the war crimes trials before you say something so dumb again , hey you can even restrict yourself to evidence in the cases where there was death sentences rather than the piles of evidence where the defendant was just jailed or aquitted . Perhaps start with the 22 rather large volumes in the British Blue set then you can go on to the Red set , perhaps try the minute by minute account of the 216 court sessions of evidence from a single trial at Nizkhor just for fun :book:

---

Oh dear me, that is a good laugh. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah I see what you are saying Husar , you think that as he broke the responsibilities he lost the rights that go with those responsibilities , thats fair enough I am in total agreement , but that isn't what Rory is saying

---

My point was that this is what Rory probably wanted to say but what he did say was that as he broke the rights he lost the responsibilities which sounds kinda funny.
I think if you "break" the responsibilities you lose some rights, like that of freedom etc. but certain rights you should always keep as they make the difference between the civilized nice guys and the cruel barbarians. Punishment with restraint and "heart" shows more willpower than mindless rage. I know it's hard but I believe the results are better in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Even Hitler would have had rights if he was arrested after the war so it doesn't say much for your opinion .

---

Did he? He certainly didn't think the jews and large swaths of his (And other sovereign nations) populations had rights. So should he be superior to them all?

Exactly Jolt , well done , you have it in a nutshell but are unable to see it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Or perhaps someone might like to claim that Waller isn't a conspiracy nut who makes crazy claims and invents quotes for use in his blogs .

---

:laugh4: Oh dear. I know how much you hate research. ~;)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

J. Michael Waller
Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication
Professional Experience

Dr. Waller holds the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Chair in International Communication, and directs the Institute's graduate programs on public diplomacy and political warfare.

He has been a scholar-practitioner in public diplomacy, political warfare, psychological operations and information operations in support of US foreign and military policy. He was a member of the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate, served on the White House Task Force on Central America, and has served as a consultant to the US Information Agency, the US Agency for International Development, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2006 he received a citation from the Director of the FBI for "exceptional service in the public interest."

He is a frequent lecturer and instructor in psychological and information operations for the US military and the intelligence community; a member of the faculty of the Leader Development and Education for Sustained Peace (LDESP) program at the Naval Postgraduate School; and is an Honorary Fellow at the Proteus Futures Group at the Center for Strategic Leadership of the US Army War College, sponsored by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence University.

Dr. Waller is editor of Serviam, a magazine he co-founded in 2007 for and about private sector global stability solutions. He has written for Insight, the Los Angeles Times, Reader's Digest, USA Today, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. He is an occasional commentator on the BBC, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

He was a founding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, published in cooperation with the American University and Moscow State University.

His books include the prizewinning Secret Empire: The KGB in Russia Today (Westview, 1994); Dismantling Tyranny: Transitioning Beyond Totalitarian Regimes, ed. with Ilan Berman (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006); Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War (IWP Press, 2007); The Public Diplomacy Reader (IWP Press, 2007); and the forthcoming Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda and Political Warfare (IWP Press, 2008).

He is Vice President for Information Operations of the Center for Security Policy. His blog is PoliticalWarfare.org.
Education
B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, 1985, George Washington University; John M. Olin Fellow, Boston University, 1987-1989; M.A., Boston University, 1989; Ph.D., Boston University, Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy, 1993. Recipient of the University Professors Alumni Award for Best Dissertation, 1993. Recipient of the University Professors Distinguished Alumni Award, 2007.

So far there is a lot of good discussion on a very sensitive issue. :2thumbsup:

Prisoners have rights. Even ones who try to kill you.

Wow what an impressive resume Vlad:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:, it doesn't mean that Waller isn't a paranoid conspiracy nut who invents quotes though does it .
Though to be fair maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe his claim that he doesn't invent quotes its just that his publishers and editors add these little things "" to his work so it makes it look like he is quoting peoples words when he isn't really quoting peoples words .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Research my arse:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Did he? He certainly didn't think the jews and large swaths of his (And other sovereign nations) populations had rights. So should he be superior to them all?

---

So do you think everybody has rights or do you exclude people like Hitler did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wow what an impressive resume Vlad:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:, it doesn't mean that Waller isn't a paranoid conspiracy nut who invents quotes though does it .
Though to be fair maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe his claim that he doesn't invent quotes its just that his publishers and editors add these little things "" to his work so it makes it look like he is quoting peoples words when he isn't really quoting peoples words .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Research my arse:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

It also doesn't prove (or disprove) that you're BG's alternate personality.

Post your resume. Oh wait, I have it here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BOLLOX!

Let's see who people trust most as being a legitimate scholar. Prove that you're not a paranoid conspiracy nut who invents quotes...or is a prolific smilie abuser. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It also doesn't prove (or disprove) that you're BG's alternate personality.
:

---

That would be all kinds of crazy

But it is possible these things happen, my imaginary friend could be treated pretty well, he is pretty much normal nowadays but he barks at the moon, even psychiatry has it it's limits sadly maybe one day we can help him.

Quote:

---

Let's see who people trust most as being a legitimate scholar.

---

Well thats an easy thingto measure .
How many politicians and journalists have taken quotes from my writing and then had to explain why the quote they used of my "quote" wasn't really a quote as the person I quoted had never used the words I "quoted" them as saying ? Then do the same with his writing .
If the result is..... Me O times---Waller lots and lots of times.... then that is rather a good indication is it not:yes:
Research Vlad , its so easy try it some time:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well thats an easy thingto measure .
How many politicians and journalists have taken quotes from my writing and then had to explain why the quote they used of my "quote" wasn't really a quote as the person I quoted had never used the words I "quoted" them as saying ? Then do the same with his writing .
If the result is..... Me O times---Waller lots and lots of times.... then that is rather a good indication is it not:yes:
Research Vlad , its so easy try it some time:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

Tribes:

On what basis do you decide on the varying 3, 4, or 5 laughing smiley totals for your little queues? I have been reading you for years --egads! -- but can't really establish a pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Tribes:

On what basis do you decide on the varying 3, 4, or 5 laughing smiley totals for your little queues? I have been reading you for years --egads! -- but can't really establish a pattern.

---

Jesus I know. This guy is either smoking a little too much hash, or he's naturally one of the happiest people I have ever "met"!

The Celts are prone to a dark sense of humour. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :skull:

If I might be allowed to add my bit and two;
The news that has been quoted in the first post, is news to me, I read the papers everyday, and I saw no article about interrogation of the terrorist. Though if someone has made the statement, it must be right.
Next, the government is actually having a hard time, the people most just want to kill the terrorist straight off. The people here don't want them to get a trial at all, and in cases like this I must say, I agree. Because, trials seem to last forever here, they put the chap in a prison, next thing we know, his parteners have hijacked a bus or a plane outside, of kidnapped somebody and will demand his release.
I read recently that one of the terrorists captured in one of the previous attacks, the bombings that took place a few months back, had sent a petition to the president, and that is actually being considered. :sweatdrop:

Hey Seamus here is an explanation , its complete bollox but lets see if its at all credible .
Posting rubbish without research gave ....Research :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Making another rubbish post without much research gave...Research:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
If he does it again without reading more of Wallers work plus some of the criticisms of his work and the problems over his "quotes" and his explanation of how his "quotes" are not really true but are not his fault then he may get a......
Research:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So do you think everybody has rights or do you exclude people like Hitler did?

---

I exclude people who have a gigantic responsability (Such as is leading a country with millions of living souls) and willingly (And pre-emptively, meaning without prior "provocation") deny such vital human rights (such as the right to live) to entire people's.

Few people would fall under such category, but yes, those people lost their rights in my eyes.

Ah but Jolt , how would you reach that judgement that people fall into that category ?
Would they perhaps have a right of a hearing and an appeal process or would it just be arbitary and on a whim ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

If I might be allowed to add my bit and two;
The news that has been quoted in the first post, is news to me, I read the papers everyday, and I saw no article about interrogation of the terrorist. Though if someone has made the statement, it must be right.
Next, the government is actually having a hard time, the people most just want to kill the terrorist straight off. The people here don't want them to get a trial at all, and in cases like this I must say, I agree. Because, trials seem to last forever here, they put the chap in a prison, next thing we know, his parteners have hijacked a bus or a plane outside, of kidnapped somebody and will demand his release.
I read recently that one of the terrorists captured in one of the previous attacks, the bombings that took place a few months back, had sent a petition to the president, and that is actually being considered. :sweatdrop:

---

Wouldn't those hijackers just kill people in revenge for thier executed partner instead? Or in other words, they pretty much lost it and are only trying to find excuses for thier already intended behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I exclude people who have a gigantic responsability (Such as is leading a country with millions of living souls) and willingly (And pre-emptively, meaning without prior "provocation") deny such vital human rights (such as the right to live) to entire people's.

Few people would fall under such category, but yes, those people lost their rights in my eyes.

---

So it's ok, if that other people are threatening the very foundation that your nation is built on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but Jolt , how would you reach that judgement that people fall into that category ?
Would they perhaps have a right of a hearing and an appeal process or would it just be arbitary and on a whim ?

---

My judgement? It's called facts. And there is a saying that goes something like this: "There are no arguments against facts."
6 years of premeditated constant assassination of innocent children and harmless people, and tons of documents with the official seal of the Reich, construction of gigantic grounds with the sole purpose of murdering people, with the obvious approval of the highest dignities of that country is more than enough for me to constitute as a fact, and not to be on a whim.

Quote:

---

So it's ok, if that other people are threatening the very foundation that your nation is built on?

---

No, it's not ok. But 99% of the people (If not really more), were murdered without a just cause according to any sane person's standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

My judgement? It's called facts. And there is a saying that goes something like this: "There are no arguments against facts."
6 years of premeditated constant assassination of innocent children and harmless people, and tons of documents with the official seal of the Reich, construction of gigantic grounds with the sole purpose of murdering people, with the obvious approval of the highest dignities of that country is more than enough for me to constitute as a fact, and not to be on a whim.

---

So you determine that these are the facts through a fair trial or simular to determine that these facts aren't falsified, and then if the crimes, that this person is guilty of is too severe, you trow out his human rights and put him in a cell (or execute him), instead of convicting him and put him in a cell (or execute) him?

Facts have one big flaw. The people's perceptive of it is based on information. Information can be controlled. How do you determine that the information is free from manipulation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

No, it's not ok. But 99% of the people (If not really more), were murdered without a just cause according to any sane person's standards.

---

I was consider it as a more general case (although admittably formed to link with the holocaust), but to reformulate, at which point are the prior provocation enough?

Yeah, ironside mostly got it down...

But i think what tribesman was originally saying was, even if these facts are well known and not disputed, lets use hitler as an example, who then is the person that decides if the crimes are too terrible to deserve a trial and the like... which is why he mentioned you, as there is no such abritrator and i don't think we should have one...

You have to trails and laws which give guidelines to punishment, not even this person is the worst in the world and the entire country hates him should you abondon law, what about the next person who is hated almost as universally ?

I hate to use the slippery slope but we should not abandon law/trail's/judges for anyone, because once you make one exception there will be others that people think deserve the same treatment, there can be no exceptions, no matter your crime you deserve a fair hearing!

Quote:

---

My judgement? It's called facts. And there is a saying that goes something like this: "There are no arguments against facts."

---

Well you missed that entirely , in fact you undermine the entire arguement you put forward .
You see because having a trial is a right , having a chance to defend yourself at a trial is a right , being judged impartially on evidence presented and contested is a right , being punished in accordance with the law is a right ...but your arguement seems to skip all that with just a whimsical .....They have no rights .
You havn't really thought your position through have you :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So you determine that these are the facts through a fair trial or simular to determine that these facts aren't falsified, and then if the crimes, that this person is guilty of is too severe, you trow out his human rights and put him in a cell (or execute him), instead of convicting him and put him in a cell (or execute) him?

Facts have one big flaw. The people's perceptive of it is based on information. Information can be controlled. How do you determine that the information is free from manipulation?

---

That's exactly why I told that only rare people get to go in the list where the facts alone can't really be manipulated. I'm not speaking about a murderer whose fact is that he killed some people but where his intentions are dubious (He could be from the Mafia, or the said people might have insulted his familly or whatever). I'm speaking about people whose actions are known to have been done with intention and the facts are that they murdered (Or ordered to murder) large numbers of people. Where is information control? Information control is impossible when you talk about an incident which killed so many people, and to which there are (still) a large number of witnesses. Noone can hide which were the intentions of the said people. Noone can manipulate that information (The same goes for Stalin's 30 year spree, and Mao's 50 year spree). People like those, who would think little of your very rights if you would so slightly importunate their ambitions, are people don't deserve rights in my opinion. Even a dog has more dignity than those people and if you put a dog down for attacking a person, they who murdered millions, are still defended as having to have rights. I respect that, but I don't agree with it, since the facts show that they murdered millions of ordinary, hard-working people, who had the simple fact of not agreeing with how things were done, were put to death, I believe that those people don't even deserve to be defended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I was consider it as a more general case (although admittably formed to link with the holocaust), but to reformulate, at which point are the prior provocation enough?

---

That would depend per case, but attempts to subvert the state would be the most common case I would find where it is time to get hard on people perpreting the said act. Jews (For the German case) weren't trying to subvert the state, or anything similar to that.

Quote:

---

But i think what tribesman was originally saying was, even if these facts are well known and not disputed, lets use hitler as an example, who then is the person that decides if the crimes are too terrible to deserve a trial and the like... which is why he mentioned you, as there is no such abritrator and i don't think we should have one...

You have to trails and laws which give guidelines to punishment, not even this person is the worst in the world and the entire country hates him should you abondon law, what about the next person who is hated almost as universally ?

I hate to use the slippery slope but we should not abandon law/trail's/judges for anyone, because once you make one exception there will be others that people think deserve the same treatment, there can be no exceptions, no matter your crime you deserve a fair hearing!

---

You would certainly be right were this normal cases and indeed in the overwhelming majority of the cases they need a fair trial. But to reply to you on about the guidelines to punishment, I would tell you it would be "Universal Common Sense and Human Rationale". If you would do a global referendum on what punishment should be given to Hitler, have you any doubt as to what the result would be?

Quote:

---

Well you missed that entirely , in fact you undermine the entire arguement you put forward .
You see because having a trial is a right , having a chance to defend yourself at a trial is a right , being judged impartially on evidence presented and contested is a right , being punished in accordance with the law is a right ...but your arguement seems to skip all that with just a whimsical .....They have no rights .
You havn't really thought your position through have you

---

Eh? No, apparently you fail badly at understanding my point of view. You asked how would I reach that judgement, and I just said it. Before what those people do, to me, there is no defence. It's not "They have no rights", it's, putting it into a good Chinese phrase regarding the tyrant Dong Zhuo who also murdered anyone in his way like Mao and Stalin I read:

"His crimes fill the heavens and upset the Earth. Mankind would devour him had they the chance." Other than that, I've already replied to your question.

Quote:

---

Eh? No, apparently you fail badly at understanding my point of view.

---

I understand your point of view perfectly , but you don't understand that it is nonsense .
It is the same view as those you condemn in case you hadn't noticed:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

That's exactly why I told that only rare people get to go in the list where the facts alone can't really be manipulated.

---

Facts can always be manipulated , that is why the world gives us the Maos and Stalins of history:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I understand your point of view perfectly , but you don't understand that it is nonsense.

---

Unfortunatly, if you think it's nonsense either lack understanding or you just don't want to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is the same view as those you condemn in case you hadn't noticed

---

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I too make purges left and right, start wars, build concentration camps, massacre thousands of civilians. Indeed it is. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Facts can always be manipulated , that is why the world gives us the Maos and Stalins of history:dizzy2:

---

...? The world gives us Maos and Stalins because they are born, and they raise through power, and while they control the media, most of their own people knew they weren't exactly rulers who gave to teir own citizens. No matter how manipulated the facts are.

Quote:

---

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I too make purges left and right, start wars, build concentration camps, massacre thousands of civilians. Indeed it is.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Absolutely clueless .
Would you like to try again Jolt ?
The theme was denying rights , the process for denying rights and the manipulation of facts to justify denying rights .
You have said the first is OK , you pretty much ignore the next phases , then say that as you havn't done what others who followed the same process as you advocate then it means your thought process is fine .

Quote:

---

Unfortunatly, if you think it's nonsense either lack understanding or you just don't want to understand.

---

The problem Jolt is that you havn't thought much and show little or no understanding of what you are talking about .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You have said the first is OK , you pretty much ignore the next phases , then say that as you havn't done what others who followed the same process as you advocate then it means your thought process is fine .

---

Yes, you may not be a tyrant Jolt, but you are a potential one, they all start out thinking some kind of human is not one/has no rights and then they start killing them off and it works so fine and everybody agrees, so the "target audience" is widened a bit, now it's not only tyrants and dictators, you will purge murderers as well, then thieves, then software pirates etc., you can see where this ends.
That you haven't done this yet is because, thank goodness, noone has given you any such powers yet. :sweatdrop: ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That would depend per case, but attempts to subvert the state would be the most common case I would find where it is time to get hard on people perpreting the said act. Jews (For the German case) weren't trying to subvert the state, or anything similar to that.

---

So you prove your innocence thanks to help from another country post-mortem? I mean I've got this 200-pages file that you're a terrorist that have been working for years to bring in a nuke and kill millions of people. So why exactly would a scum like you get the right to defend yourself?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Because the facts that you would prove your innocence, is the same that would prove who is the ones that are guilty. But by denying the right of defence, you're giving more control of the information to the prosecutor. Sure, most of the truth might leak out, eventually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

You would certainly be right were this normal cases and indeed in the overwhelming majority of the cases they need a fair trial. But to reply to you on about the guidelines to punishment, I would tell you it would be "Universal Common Sense and Human Rationale". If you would do a global referendum on what punishment should be given to Hitler, have you any doubt as to what the result would be?

---

Ever heard of Alfred Dreyfus? A nice example of how "Universal Common Sense and Human Rationale" works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Eh? No, apparently you fail badly at understanding my point of view. You asked how would I reach that judgement, and I just said it. Before what those people do, to me, there is no defence. It's not "They have no rights", it's, putting it into a good Chinese phrase regarding the tyrant Dong Zhuo who also murdered anyone in his way like Mao and Stalin I read:

"His crimes fill the heavens and upset the Earth. Mankind would devour him had they the chance." Other than that, I've already replied to your question.

---

And after a proper prosecution, he will.
It is not his right to defense that is needed to be protected, it's his right to be properly prosecuted (and a proper prosecution requires by definition a defense).

Quote:

---

So you prove your innocence thanks to help from another country post-mortem?

---

Would that be like the post mortem on the Thai fishermen the Indian navy killed claiming they were Somali pirates ?