Interrogation video

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7507216.stm

 

Secretly filmed (presumably by the man's lawyer) I was a bit confused by this. Certainly the man is upset, but as far as the interviewer goes I've given people a harder time during a job interview than the Canadian officer does.

 

Mention is made of his wounds, and that's serious, but

 

a) we can't actually see them

b) anyone who tosses grenades about is likely to catch some shrapnel, particularly if they are unskilled

c) you are unlikely to treat a suspect's wounds, since they might die, rather cancelling out the advantage of having caught him

d) far from illustrating an interview process that is aggressive, the interviewer tells the guy he's obviously too upset, and he's going to come back when he's calmed down!

 

Given the incident was clearly filmed as a showboating exercise by the suspect, I find the whole thing a non-starter. But I was very interested to see what everyone else thought.

[Sand]

My only beef with this is that he is still just a kid and most kids make stupid decisions based on their inexperience or naivity. He was captured at 15 and at the time of this interview he was 16. Just a kid. Beyond that I have to agree with you, Walsh.

[theslug]

I think at 15 you have the cognitive ability to decipher whether or not joining an extremist religious group hell bent on killing innocent people is a bad idea.

[Xard]

Ahh, but in their eyes are they innocent hmm?

[Sand]

I think at 15 you have the cognitive ability to decipher whether or not joining an extremist religious group hell bent on killing innocent people is a bad idea.

 

Not always. Most kids at 15 to 16 years of age are highly impressionable, easy to manipulate, and control if you know the right triggers. You maybe right in this kid, but not all. He did, however, an act of aggression and should be duly punished for that but lets not let one mistake condemn him for the rest of his life.

[Brdavs]

Oh yea, "deprived of sleep by being removed from his cell and to another cell every three hours on a 24-hour basis for three weeks solid, followed by three weeks of deep solitary confinement". But seeing thoe he said "take a few minutes, relax, tis all fine lol.

 

The fact youre reducing the thing to an argument of a 15yr olds cognitive abillities is laughable. It`s actually BS whatever the age he was/is. And still in there from what I gather lol. Guess his pleads to kill him landed on deaf ears.

 

 

 

It`s like bin laden coming here justifying that the US people have themselves to blame because they (on paper) had the cognitive abillity not to repeatedly vote in administrations that agressivly pursued their interests and regiemes whith no regards for local popullus or anything else.

 

 

You ppl still actually have the gaull to pass yourself off as "the good guys" heh? Gotta admire them marbles.

[theslug]

Oh yea, "deprived of sleep by being removed from his cell and to another cell every three hours on a 24-hour basis for three weeks solid, followed by three weeks of deep solitary confinement". But seeing thoe he said "take a few minutes, relax, tis all fine lol.

 

The fact youre reducing the thing to an argument of a 15yr olds cognitive abillities is laughable. It`s actually BS whatever the age he was/is. And still in there from what I gather lol. Guess his pleads to kill him landed on deaf ears.

 

 

 

It`s like bin laden coming here justifying that the US people have themselves to blame because they (on paper) had the cognitive abillity not to repeatedly vote in administrations that agressivly pursued their interests and regiemes whith no regards for local popullus or anything else.

 

 

You ppl still actually have the gaull to pass yourself off as "the good guys" heh? Gotta admire them marbles.

When your country is the the most technologically advanced in the world and has the highest GDP then you can claim whatever you want. It's a god given right gd damnit.

[Sand]

Might does not make right, Slug. Never has and never will.

[theslug]

Yeah I was just kidding.

 

As far as the interrogation went it was a complete non issue. Most likely the kid was beaten, which is unfortunate. However you're forgetting the real issue is if this kid committed a terrorist act that ended in someones life being taken away, he's a murderer and should be charged as such. You can drone on about how kids are naive and stupid and easily manipulated, which are all true, but there still is accountability here. Unless the kid was beaten over the head with a blunt object as a child he most likely has the proper brain matter which allows logical reasoning. Such as "if i explode this in a crowd of people they are going to die." He knew what he was doing and whether he thought it was right or wrong is unimportant. Considering the circumstances I wouldn't condemn him for life. Some kind of prison meets meaningful rehabilitation for a few years with 15+ years parole. If he messes up, then off to the dungeon with ye.

[Gorgon]

He's a 15 year old kid, not a terrorist mastermind. Jeez.

[Sand]

Also if he didn't go through with it what do you think those who gave him the grenade in the first place would have done to him? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Walsingham]

Kicking a footabll through a window is 15 year old hijinx. Throwing hand grenades at a patrol of soldiers is volunteering for adult status.

 

In any event, the point of my question is how harshly do you think he's being treated?

[Sand]

On camera, not bad. Off camera, who knows.

[Walsingham]

On camera, not bad. Off camera, who knows.

 

True.

[random n00b]

Might does not make right, Slug. Never has and never will.

It does, actually. Just watch the news. Whatever lies you tell to yourself to help you sleep at ease change nothing.

[Gorgon]

Apples and oranges. Getting away with it is not the same as being right.

[random n00b]

It is, actually. Moral absolutes are an illusion, and they are being redefined constantly. Who does that? Those with power. "Power" is not just a word.

 

Go check your History if you need any proof.

Edited July 15, 2008 by random n00b

[Laozi]

As someone ho has been in jail before this seems rather tame in comparison

[random n00b]

Who let you out anyway?

[Gorgon]

I'm remembering that scene from the Matrix where the Frenchie says 'Morality is an illusion created between those with power and those without.' Who is he quoting again, Nietzsche ?

 

Anyway, morality is an abstract, you decide if it means anything to you. Fortunately a lot of people wind up thinking just that.

[Laozi]

the good people of the ACLU

[Walsingham]

It is, actually. Moral absolutes are an illusion, and they are being redefined constantly. Who does that? Those with power. "Power" is not just a word.

 

Go check your History if you need any proof.

 

 

I don't agree moral absolutes are an abstract. We are designed to have empathy. Pain to oursleves is typically viewed as bad, and pain in others is often viewed as bad. We can dance around it, or ignore it, or try to rationalise the pain away, but beneath the flummery the pain continues.

 

In this case, the guy is having an unpleasant time, but I believe he is being treated in a way which minimises his discomfort. Which is a damn sight more than he did to the poor blokes he threw a grenade at.

[Gorgon]

Morality is not an emotional response, it usually entails hard choices with no immediate benefits. Thats not the same as sympathetic neurons making you feel glad when you see a smile and distressed at pain. That would be empathy, the most important building block of human socialisation. You might say Morality is the long view.

 

I'm not sure what I'm responding to, but I thought it was an interesting differentiation.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Gorgon

[Xard]

mirror neurons actually make it possible to understand and "translate" motions and feelings based "messages". but it's not so straight forward as that [/nitpick]

 

Moral absolutism is dead born idea anyway, even if there was God who told us what to do.

[Walsingham]

Look, we should probably have a morality thread if we're going to dicuss it. For my money I don't see why the collective should not define good nad bad in terms of what benefits it, and try to enforec that behaviour. The World is replete with failed states where that doesn't happen. I can't say it looks terribly appealing.

 

The relevance here, I suppose is the rightness or wrongness of what was done to this suspect. To which my response would be to ask what definition of bad would be required to define this as bad?