US tortures

[Tsuga C]

Not safe for work or for the weak of stomach:

 

http://t.co/2bx3TKqHDs

 

The report from a bunch of Demotard staffers causes me no angst. The interview on December 11, 2014 with Pete Hoekstra was quite illuminating.

 

http://www.wjr.com/page.php?page_id=821#

Edited December 19, 2014 by Tsuga C

[Wrath of Dagon]

Most intelligence info isn't reliable. The point is to get info so it can be cross checked against other info or to develop other info. Unreliable info is still better than none.

[Zoraptor]

Unreliable information is almost always worse than no information because resources have to be wasted either checking up on or worse, acting on that unreliable information to determine that it is unreliable. WW2 is replete with such examples, Hitler convincing himself that D-Day would be at Pas de Calais due to the inflatable armies or Operation Mincemeat convincing him that Greece and Sardinia would be invaded rather than Sicily. 

 

Though it is absolutely certain that some- usually large- proportion of information gathered by any intelligence method will be unreliable and that much of the rest will be irrelevant. The problem is very seldom too little information, it is almost always too much information and determining which bits are accurate or even relevant.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

The British, as a relatively small nation with a large empire learned that heavy handed methods generally don't work best, and if nothing else, know very well how to organize an intelligence community. If they didn't they'd have never held India with the equivalent of a dozen men.

 

More or less, the British Empire ran on basically three different approaches. Get native leaders to run things for you with tame soldiers/ police. If not that then support the second strongest ethnic group against the strongest. If neither of those two work then the gloves are well and truly off, including torture- though the British were hardly the worst* and despite the White Man's Burden rhetoric were considerably more prosaic and realistic about things than the US with their manifest destiny/ messiah complex and uncomfortable and incompatible mix of naive idealism and sociopathic application.

 

*US ain't the worst either by a decent amount too, comparatively speaking it would probably be Belgium, or early Spain.

 

But, Britain has had a long history of doing things at very least equivalent to what the US has done, up to recently and historically- as have most imperial powers. The counter insurgency work against the IRA certainly employed a lot of informants and such which were effective, but also employed arbitrary arrests and torture. The response to the Maomao insurgency in Kenya involved copious torture which has only recently been somewhat admitted, and for which there will be no punishment. They essentially invented modern 'legal' collective punishment via the Boer War concentration camp. The Sepoy rebellion in India involved such humane punishments as tying prisoners to cannons then firing them through their bodies. And of course ten of millions of Indians starved on the British watch. It all tended to get justified similarly as well, as being stuff that at least 'worked'; even when it didn't.

 

People argue so strongly that torture works as a moral insulation; it is essentially cognitive dissonance, not wanting bad words applied to people/ countries you like, wanting them to be better than others and yes, to have done bad things for The Greater Good (the greater good). The Harvard study on the use of waterboarding as torture illustrates it pretty well. Prior to 2004 waterboarding was almost always referred to as torture by the US press- afterwards it almost never was. That is why some people so desperately want the US either not to have tortured or for it to have all been worth it. But if it doesn't work and provided no usable intelligence then you have to accept that you just had a bunch of our guys waterboarding and raping prisoners with dogs for absolutely no gain.

 

It doesn't make a lick of logical or objective sense, but makes a whole lot of subjective sense. There's also pretty much nothing you can do to persuade people that they're wrong about it precisely because it's so interwoven into a person's fundamental beliefs.

 

 

I'm not saying the British were "nice", just a tad more subtle on average. The practice of building an empire always ends up looking the same everywhere, the justifications are always similar and the differences are a matter of nuance. 

 

Although the Belgian conduct in Congo was so far beyond ruthless that you have to wonder what sort of people were running the country at the time.

[Walsingham]

Zor, the cannon strapping was for traitors in uniform.

 

Either you didn't know that and you're only half educated, or you did know that and you misrepresented it for dramatic effect, or you did know it and don't feel loyalty under arms is important.

 

Any of the above constitutes a fail.

[Zoraptor]

Or I think those that remained loyal to the occupiers were Quislings and those that didn't were True Heroes and Patriots.

 

I actually think that the circumstances don't matter much at all so didn't mention them- as I said, there's always a justification that can be had for barbarity. You can try to (further) justify it if you like, but that really just proves the overall point. Strapping people to cannons is a punishment designed to give a painful undignified end beyond the mere punishment for a crime, for mere execution a bullet suffices.

[Walsingham]

Or I think those that remained loyal to the occupiers were Quislings and those that didn't were True Heroes and Patriots.

 

I actually think that the circumstances don't matter much at all so didn't mention them- as I said, there's always a justification that can be had for barbarity. You can try to (further) justify it if you like, but that really just proves the overall point. Strapping people to cannons is a punishment designed to give a painful undignified end beyond the mere punishment for a crime, for mere execution a bullet suffices.

 

It was done to sepoys who revolted. Sepoys were volunteers who were sworn in.

 

I can' think of many cultures that regard traitors kindly. Indeed, most can barely stomach traitors to their own enemies.

 

The only example that springs to mind is the way the Ottomans actively encouraged traitors from their enemies in the 1500s.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Ok, so how would you two go about fixing the medical industry?

 

A bit late, but that's quite easy simple.

 

1. Abolish the AMA.
2. Abolish the FDA.
3. Abolish patent law.
4. Abolish healthcare associated regulation. Every. Single. One.
5. Abolish Medicare.
6. Abolish Medicaid--in all of its forms.
7. Abolish corporate person-hood.

Number four is cheating somewhat as there are MANY laws regarding healthcare on the federal level alone. Abolishing the American Medical Association and their monopoly on the licensing of physicians is the most important. Abolishing the FDA is next in line for similar reasons but towards products. Number three goes hand in hand with abolishing the FDA. The rest are massive distortions in the market which disconnect buyers & sellers and destroy any real price discovery. I could get alot more specific about each of these, but that would be a very large novel you wouldn't care to read, and I wouldn't care to write.

[ShadySands]

You don't need to get specific with the details but what would you replace everything with? 

 

I don't think many people would get in line for a completely unregulated health care (non) system

[Wrath of Dagon]

Unreliable information is almost always worse than no information because resources have to be wasted either checking up on or worse, acting on that unreliable information to determine that it is unreliable. WW2 is replete with such examples, Hitler convincing himself that D-Day would be at Pas de Calais due to the inflatable armies or Operation Mincemeat convincing him that Greece and Sardinia would be invaded rather than Sicily. 

 

Though it is absolutely certain that some- usually large- proportion of information gathered by any intelligence method will be unreliable and that much of the rest will be irrelevant. The problem is very seldom too little information, it is almost always too much information and determining which bits are accurate or even relevant.

By that argument why gather intelligence at all, if the problem is too much information? Your examples are disinformation, not the same thing is unreliable information. It would be pretty hard to get someone to maintain a planted story when subject to enhanced interrogation. Most intelligence information is unreliable, that's why it is difficult. Lots of people who knew what was going on said that intelligence collected was useful, a politicized partisan report by Senate Democrats who were already on record with their opinions before any investigation was done and who didn't even talk to most of the people involved doesn't prove anything.

[Walsingham]

 

Unreliable information is almost always worse than no information because resources have to be wasted either checking up on or worse, acting on that unreliable information to determine that it is unreliable. WW2 is replete with such examples, Hitler convincing himself that D-Day would be at Pas de Calais due to the inflatable armies or Operation Mincemeat convincing him that Greece and Sardinia would be invaded rather than Sicily. 

 

Though it is absolutely certain that some- usually large- proportion of information gathered by any intelligence method will be unreliable and that much of the rest will be irrelevant. The problem is very seldom too little information, it is almost always too much information and determining which bits are accurate or even relevant.

By that argument why gather intelligence at all, if the problem is too much information? Your examples are disinformation, not the same thing is unreliable information. It would be pretty hard to get someone to maintain a planted story when subject to enhanced interrogation. Most intelligence information is unreliable, that's why it is difficult. Lots of people who knew what was going on said that intelligence collected was useful, a politicized partisan report by Senate Democrats who were already on record with their opinions before any investigation was done and who didn't even talk to most of the people involved doesn't prove anything.

 

In this case Zor is quite right. The main purpose of any professional intelligence organisation is not to collect information, but to analyse it and filter out what may be the truth. Collection is left to other people. If it were vital  it would be retained in house as a matter of course.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What other people?

[Walsingham]

What other people?

 

*giggles*

 

Wait, you're serious.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I should be the one laughing, as you seem to think collecting intelligence isn't one of the functions of an intelligence agency. Of course given that most of the British intelligence agents were actually Soviet spies, in that case you're right, they already knew whatever they needed to know.

[ShadySands]

 

...its says that the information received isn't reliable, which amounts to the same thing.

I think this is important. What constitutes "reliability". 100% accuracy? 75%?

 

If your government had to torture a terror cell (lets say 20 people for the sake of conversation) to prevent a school bombing type incident like what recently happened in Pakistan, would it be acceptable to you that 19 didn't know anything but one did and gave it up?

 

 

Sorry, I missed this earlier

 

From what I've been told it's more likely that all 20 would eventually tell you whatever they thought you wanted to hear and you would have figure out what, if anything, is the truth

 

 

Not safe for work or for the weak of stomach:

 

-beheading image bashing liberals-

 

This is an execution, a grisly one to be sure, but still an execution and I don't think barbarism excuses barbarism

[Mr. Magniloquent]

You don't need to get specific with the details but what would you replace everything with? 

 

I don't think many people would get in line for a completely unregulated health care (non) system

 

I would replace it with nothing compulsory. Ratings agencies exist. Insurance companies would have to survive on their own, rather than seek rent and favors of The State. Prices would plummet since practitioners would actually be able to enter the market and drugs would be able to be produced cheaply and broadly. You would be responsible for finding a doctor you trust--something people should already be doing. Believe me, AMA board certification means very little--I have worked with hundreds of physicians. Everything would sort itself out (for the better) very quickly.

[Walsingham]

I should be the one laughing, as you seem to think collecting intelligence isn't one of the functions of an intelligence agency. Of course given that most of the British intelligence agents were actually Soviet spies, in that case you're right, they already knew whatever they needed to know.

 

Now you're doing it on purpose.

 

Most of the British agents were Soviet spies? Must have been a crap time to be a double agent. The whole office spying on one boss-eyed guy called Ian whose operations somehow fail 15 different ways.

[HoonDing]

Actually, they were SPECTRE spies.

[ShadySands]

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

[Valsuelm]

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

 

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true.

[BruceVC]

 

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

 

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true.

 

Vals you have to start learning to trust institutions like the CIA, end of the day they have your best interests at heart

 

You dont need to know anything about them to respect the hard work they do 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

 

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true.

 

Vals you have to start learning to trust institutions like the CIA, end of the day they have your best interests at heart

 

You dont need to know anything about them to respect the hard work they do 

 

 

Bruce, the CIA has my best interests at heart as much as Ebola or a Great White Shark does.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

 

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true.

 

Vals you have to start learning to trust institutions like the CIA, end of the day they have your best interests at heart

 

You dont need to know anything about them to respect the hard work they do 

 

 

Bruce, the CIA has my best interests at heart as much as Ebola or a Great White Shark does.

 

 

 

Come on Vals, that a bit harsh?

[Elerond]

 

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

 

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true.

 

 

Although it isn't necessary use waterboarding again, as there is other torturous methods to interrogate people that aren't controversial.

[Gfted1]

I cant believe we havent come up with a truth serum yet.