A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
The reason people say torture doesn't work is the massive risk of the false positive not concern about that false negative.

As my examples pointed out, people can and do get valuable information from torture. Sometimes they get bad information but they also get good information. Otherwise the Gestapo and KGB wouldn't have been so effective in using captured operatives to destroy resistance rings. In addition, if people are punished for giving out bad information it would seem to me that that would encourage them to stick with the good information.

Originally posted by Adder Also, it is nice to know that torture innocent people doesn't bother you, as long as they are not in uniform.

When did I say that?

Originally posted by Adder Moreover, I think you vastly over estimate the number of circumstances in which innocent lives are so imminently at stake that torture can save them.

Why do you say that? There is no question many plots have been foiled by information gleaned from captured operatives. As I said, the whole success of their operation depends on secrecey and their operatives keeping secrets. Their plans (like 9-11) can not work if they lose if a participant blabs. One of their biggest vulnerabilities is information gleaned from captured operatives. It seems logical to me that one of the most effective ways to fight these guys is to capture their people and to get information from them.

Originally posted by Adder Finally, didn't we just get done talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from anecdotal evidence?

What ancedotal evidence? The entire underground movement in WWII changing their tactics to prevent exposure from captured resistence fighters? The fact almost every POW in captured in Vietnam eventually broke and gave the North Vietnamese information. The fact that the KGB was able to capture and expose countless operatives by torturing their collegues? The question is: when did torture not work?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The American citizen who we've been talking about was not a part of such an organization, nor does there ever seem to have been a serious reason to think he was. Rather, the use of sleep deprivation appears to be a routine way to treat people in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Did I ever claim otherwise? I was discussing the definition of torture and whether torture could be an effective tool in the war on terror.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did I ever claim otherwise? I was discussing the definition of torture and whether torture could be an effective tool in the war on terror.

OK, but you responded to a series of posts prompted by a NYT article about an American citizen who was tortured -- or not, depending on how you use that word -- for reasons that appear to have nothing to do with your justification.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I didn't see that.

My Post

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't know anything about the Canadian health care system, but I have participated in the British, French, Italian and Japanese Health care systems and they all sucked. I was a student in London, with not a lot of money, but after a few runs with the "NHS" I chose to pay for private health care because their system was almost medieval.

I spent Christmas day 2000 in the South Surrey Medical center, and I think most crack houses in the United States could provide a more sterile environment. I had to remind a nurse to sterilize a thermometer when she tried to put in my mouth. She took another patient's tempature and then tried to stick the same thermometer in mine without so much as wiping it off. Once I pointed this out to her she dipped it in some Alcohol and insisted she be allowed to stick in my mouth. I was tempted to cram it into another orifice of hers.

Even private Japanese hospitals don't shine a candle to ours. Our system may not be perfect, but it is by far the best in the western world, so we shouldn't even think about trying imitate anyone else’s. Universal health care would be nice, but if it means becoming more like any of these other systems, that would be a huge mistake.

First RT post:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was also a poor student in the UK under NHS. I got great, great care on three occassions. Never a line, never a wait, and the scar over my right eyebrow from an unfortunate rugby accident is practically invisible. You would have thought the guy who put the stitches in (after a two minute wait in the office instead of a four hour wait in an ER, I literally walked into the office about ten minutes after the accident covered in blood and dripping) was a plastic surgeon rather than a GP.

Second RT post:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
God fucking damnit. This is what I'm talking about. Every.Fucking.Single.Time. Universal Healthcare is mentioned, the horror stories from all over the world that have absolutely no bearing at all on the United States come out.

Start giving your Medicare horror stories and then I'll start listening to your moaning and groaning. Even better, start giving me your VA horror stories (and believe me, there are plenty), and I'll give a listen. And then I'll point out that because of the VA's electronic health records, it has some of the best care you can get anywhere. (see also the peer reviewed articles).

And people in the UK are healthier than people in the US, even taking socioeconomic status into account.

To be fair it seems she was responding to different sections of my post, but she did post twice in response to the same post. However, unlike you, I don't see that as a sign of a lack of calmness.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but you responded to a series of posts prompted by a NYT article about an American citizen who was tortured -- or not, depending on how you use that word -- for reasons that appear to have nothing to do with your justification.

When I posted I made it very clear I was addressing the issue of their debate over the definition of torture. That was clear as day as my very fist line was:

"My whole problem with this discussion is the focus on the word torture. It is like people see the issue of, if it is torture it is not OK, and if it is not torture then it is OK."


Even though I made that clear in my post what issue I was addressing I was tempted to reiterate it again because I knew someone would be tempted to go for the cheap shot straw man argument (that I was trying to defend the torture of American citizens). But I decided not to, because any rational person could see that was not what I was doing and I was curious to see which poster would go for the cheap shot.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
She has the certainty of knowing she's right. It comes with being a cunt.

(sorry -- I know you don't like that word)

Watch out Sidd. Someone might accuse you of being sexist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was curious to see which poster would go for the cheap shot.

I see no cheap shots here, and think you've made it clear that the guy profiled in the NYT article should not have been treated as he was.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
From the mouth of that whiny little snotrag (whose band has always always sucked), on walking out of his meeting with American lawmakers without cash for his charities:



This guy's got a fucking nerve. I like Sally Struthers better. She asks nicer.

The part that makes me nauseous is he won’t point the finger at the obvious place. Congress has the power of the purse. They write the budget or the continuing resolution. Has Bush vetoed or threatened to veto this?

Right now the blame lies squarely with the Dems but he just won't admit it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
papaya?

Kumquat?

ETA: Don't mind me - just passing through for 5 seconds. See all you clowns after Christmas. God rest ye Merry, and all that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Lengthy article in the FT about the prospects for Scottish independence. Author seems to think that it's about to become a bigger issue but that it's not going anywhere.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sometimes they get bad information but they also get good information.

In addition, if people are punished for giving out bad information it would seem to me that that would encourage them to stick with the good information

I don't have personal experience with the results of torture, but those that do suggest that you have it exactly backbard. Aways you get bad information, but sometimes you get good information. And, of course, you only know who had good information after you already tortured them.

And how do you punish someone you are already torturing?

When did I say [that I was in favor of torturing innocent people]?

When you said you are okay with torturing people if there is a .001% chance of getting something useful.

There is no question many plots have been foiled by information gleaned from captured operatives.

How many is many? And how many of these heroic thwartings required the use of torture?

As I said, the whole success of their operation depends on secrecey and their operatives keeping secrets. Their plans (like 9-11) can not work if they lose if a participant blabs. One of their biggest vulnerabilities is information gleaned from captured operatives. It seems logical to me that one of the most effective ways to fight these guys is to capture their people and to get information from them.

Try not to venture too far past the obvious there, Spanky.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't have personal experience with the results of torture, but those that do suggest that you have it exactly backbard. Aways you get bad information, but sometimes you get good information.

Who has had experience with torture? Who has admitted that they have tortured people? That is what is wrong with these statements from the so called "experts". No one wants to admit they have tortured. And everyone wants to hear that torture does not work. If I have tortured people effectively, am I going to come out an announce that publicly? In addition, anyone in the military is going to pretend they don't torture, and if they argue for torture that is a very strong admission that they are doing it. There is absolutely no up side for the military to argue for torture and everything to gain for publicly arguing against it.

The whole argument that torture doesn't work is self fulfilling wishful thinking. Of course it works. But people don't want to face the moral dilemmas having to choose between torturing prisoners and saving innocent lives. It seems to me that most of the people that say torture doesn't work are the ones that say it is always immoral. In other words, they have already plotted out their position and are just grabbing anything to back it up.

But as I have said again and again you just have to have a rudimentary understanding of history to understand that torture has been used very effectively through the years. If it doesn't 1)Why were the underground groups in WWII forced to limit everyone’s knowledge on who they worked with 2) How come groups who had an operative captured were immediately wiped out by the Gestapo 3) In Vietnam why did all the men buckle. And give out information more than just name rank and serial number. Did you read a Nightingales Song? When the men were being interrogated they were always amazed (and discouraged) by what the North Vietnamese knew. The discouragement came because they knew the NV had obtained this information from other pilots. If it was not torture, why did these pilots give up so much information?

Information is a commodity just like anything else. Extortion has been used for years very effectively. The collection rackets have used it for eons. If you don't give me what I want, I am going to hurt your. Countless criminal enterprises have been built on that business model since man first walked upright. Why wouldn't it work with a captured prisoner? You give me what I want or I am going to hurt you.

I was just watching the history channel the other night and they were talking about how in pirate raids in the Caribbean, that towns people would hide their treasurers before the pirates came. So the pirates tortured the town folk to find the location of their treasure. They talked about the different techniques that were used and which was the most effective. It was also stated that people rarely held out under torture. But if torture doesn't work, why did these town people give up the location of their hidden treasurers? Did they feel the Pirates were down on their luck or because of the effort they put into capturing the town they deserved their treasure?

Originally posted by Adder And, of course, you only know who had good information after you already tortured them.

Who says you can torture them only once? Who says you can't punish then for giving you bad information, so that they start giving you good information?

Originally posted by Adder
And how do you punish someone you are already torturing?

Are you trying to be obtuse? Are you kidding? Do you think there may be levels of torture? Have you heard of negative reinforcement? Once you have been tortured, if you give us good information we will stop hurting you, if it turns out to be bad we will come back and hurt you again. If an extortion racket received some counterfeit money from someone they are extorting do you think they say, "well, we have already beat this guy up once, so there is nothing we can do to make sure he doesn't give us counterfit money again"?

Originally posted by Adder
When you said you are okay with torturing people if there is a .001% chance of getting something useful.

If they don't have useful information does that make them innocent?

Originally posted by Adder
How many is many? And how many of these heroic thwartings required the use of torture?

If one more 9-11 was thwarted that is all I need to hear to justify torturing all A Queda members for the rest of time.

Originally posted by Adder
Try not to venture too far past the obvious there, Spanky.

Why venture beyond the obvious, when the obvious proves your point.

1) Al Queda can only pull off effective terroist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Queda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Queda operatives
4) Many captured operatives won't want to give to our interrogators this pertinent information.
5) Not always, but in many cases pain and the threat of pain can induce people to do things they are reluctant to do.

You can tell me that it is UnAmerican to torture, you can tell me that it is always immoral to torture, you can tell me that if we use torture that will increase the chance our people will get tortured, but don't try and tell me that there is not a trade off between using torture and saving innocent lives. The connection is just way too obvious.

[Spanky]

Geopolitical Diary: Libya's High-Stakes Verdict

The Libyan Criminal Court confirmed on Tuesday that it has sentenced to death five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor for allegedly infecting more than 400 Libyan children with HIV. The medical personnel have been in prison in Libya since the HIV/AIDS outbreak at the Benghazi hospital in 1999. They were first sentenced to death in 2004, but the court reopened the case in 2005 after international protests.

Bulgaria was first to condemn the verdict, and immediately lobbied for international support. A few hours later, EU Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner said the European Union will not accept the verdict and that the case should be referred to a higher authority. Most other international authorities -- in particular health authorities -- have made similar statements over the years.

In exchange for dismissal of the charges, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has suggested that Bulgaria pay compensation to the families of the children; but Sofia says this is unacceptable since such payments would indicate an admission of the nurses' guilt. It is with more than a touch of irony that Gadhafi has requested an amount identical to the per person compensation that Libya was forced to pay the next of kin for its involvement in the 1998 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Normally, disputes between Bulgaria and Libya -- two minor powers that literally have nothing to do with each other -- would not be worth mentioning.

But this is different. On Jan. 1 Bulgaria accedes to the European Union, meaning that in a little less than two weeks Tripoli will be holding hostage not five Bulgarians, but five European citizens.

Libya desperately wants to continue its economic reforms and improve its relations with its main oil and gas trading partners. It is also in Tripoli's best interest to stay friendly with all EU members (and those that will become members soon) since the organization has recently been searching for new energy suppliers, and Libya has the potential to emerge as a major player.

For now Tripoli could be thinking of its position as strong, but that illusion will quickly be dispelled. A strange quirk of EU foreign policy is that all 25 -- soon to be 27 -- members enjoy veto power over every policy. Beginning next year, if Libya does not respond to international pressure by modifying the death sentence, Bulgaria will certainly take every chance it can to block Libya from achieving its EU development assistance, a free trade deal, or a spot in the union's Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.

While Gadhafi may be arrogant, mercurial, and live in a desert tent, he is eccentric -- not stupid. And he has proven perfectly willing to abandon long-standing policy in order to achieve things he really wants. (Libya's abandonment of its nuclear program in 2004 comes to mind.) This situation will be difficult to climb down from since Gadhafi has beat this particular drum long and loud to capitalize on anti-foreigner sentiment.

But as of Jan. 1, Gadhafi will have little choice but to climb down, because on that day Sofia's problem becomes Brussels' problem -- which means it will be Tripoli's problem.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
[long post responding to Adder]

You can tell me that it is UnAmerican to torture, you can tell me that it is always immoral to torture, you can tell me that if we use torture that will increase the chance our people will get tortured, but don't try and tell me that there is not a trade off between using torture and saving innocent lives. The connection is just way too obvious.

Okay. I don't necessarily disagree with you with respect to bona fide Al Qaeda members/operatives/whatever (e.g. KSM). But what about someone who isn't, but was arrested/captured based on either bad information or wrong place/wrong time? With your basic stance on this, how do you avoid torturing the genuinely uninvolved?

Or do we have to torture anyone who might be linked to Al Qaeda (by proximity or bad information or whatever) in order to establish who is and who isn't? Doesn't torture become counter productive (even for the purposes you state) if used too broadly?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Lengthy article in the FT about the prospects for Scottish independence. Author seems to think that it's about to become a bigger issue but that it's not going anywhere.

This is just a perfect example of where sour grapes and ethnic hatred completely trump common sense.

So the big question is will Great Britain take the Scottish part of the Union Jack out? That would be the white diaganoal St. Andrews cross and the Blue Background. That would just leave a red diagonal cross (the symbol of Northern Ireland) and the English cross of St. George, leaving two red crosses on a white background. If northern Ireland drops out to reunite with Ireland, that will just leave them with the English fllag. And with only Wales left will they still call themselves the United Kingdom (kind of like Yugoslavia when it was just Serbia and Montenegro) but still use the English flag? Or will they incorporate the Welsh Griffen into the flag of the United Kingdom that is only Wales and England (to differentiate the United Kingdom flag from the English flag)? These are the important questions.