Thread: Interesting Documentary

IIRC the Geneva convention has never been signed by a whole host of countries.... China, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam.... and I'm sure there are others. However it relates only to the rights of soldiers not "enemy combatants" or terrorists.
like spies these can simply be shot without pretext.

when we try to assign rights to people who are striving to deprive others of the basic right to life, we are no better than they.

let's bring it home... it is nighttime... i break into your occupied dwelling, armed and with the intent to commit various felonies (burglary), say robbery arson and murder... you shoot me causing me to fall and break my leg... you are all for me being able to bring suit against you for the shooting and the broken leg, as well as just compensation fort he the loss of earning i would normally make from these enterprises?

no real difference when you scale it up to the national level.

one other thing... lawyers are paid very well to "skirt the edge of legality" it is one of their more endearing qualities.

Originally Posted by syslight

let's bring it home... it is nighttime... i break into your occupied dwelling, armed and with the intent to commit various felonies (burglary), say robbery arson and murder... you shoot me causing me to fall and break my leg... you are all for me being able to bring suit against you for the shooting and the broken leg, as well as just compensation fort he the loss of earning i would normally make from these enterprises?

Hmm, I think that I would go with that - I think you should have the right to bring a lawsuit if you wish, and I believe that you will loose it (probably at a very early stage, as I'd expect such glaring things to be dismissed very very early on in the process). It seems to me that independent justice is a rather critical component of a civilized society. Otherwise what's the difference with a dictatorship, or totalitarianism?

I'll think more about the granting of rights, to me the problem seems that without having an independent judgement of who is guilty and who is not, everybody can be gulty. Seems like a vicious circle that shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by syslight

[Snip]

when we try to assign rights to people who are striving to deprive others of the basic right to life, we are no better than they.

[Snip]

I've gone through this statement every way I know how, in and out of context, and can't make head nor tail of it. Are you saying that when we adhere to our principles in dealing with criminals, we become just like them? It makes no sense, but I can't read it any other way.

Can you explain?

j

Originally Posted by syslight

let's bring it home... it is nighttime... i break into your occupied dwelling, armed and with the intent to commit various felonies (burglary), say robbery arson and murder... you shoot me causing me to fall and break my leg... you are all for me being able to bring suit against you for the shooting and the broken leg, as well as just compensation fort he the loss of earning i would normally make from these enterprises?

no real difference when you scale it up to the national level.

Huge difference...B&C are not executing these people, they are torturing them.

So, let's say I have been told you intended to break into my house to commit a violent crime...I come and grab you off the street, but I don't shoot you...instead I force you to wear a dog collar and do tricks...I deprive you of sleep, waterboard you, hang you by your wrists, beat you, kick you, force you to wear women's underwear, sodomize you with random objects, force you to stand naked, ridicule you, douse you with ice water.

Oh, and you have not been formally charged...and when I find out that grabbing you off the street was based on bogus info....I let you go.

When questioned by authorities, I'll just say "I had it on reliable authority that he was going to commit a crime against me, but I can't reveal the source." If the authorities ask about others I may have detained, I'll just hide behind "my personal security".

Torture does not produce reliable intelligence....B&C, their lawyers, and the amateurs the put in charge have simply been watching too many spy movies...that or they are in need of serious psychological treatment.

Reliable intelligence is gathered through interrogation, PsyOps, trickery, research, cunning, initmidation, and guile. The best intelligence is gathered from people giving it voluntarily, without their knowing it.

Violence simply gets you information that will make you stop the pain. The KGB used it to extract "confessions" - not becasue they were after the truth, but becasue they needed the confession for propaganda and so they could shoot the prisoner and afterwards wave the confession, saying "Look, he confessed!" The same tactic used by the Gestapo, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. The myth of "Ve haf vays of making you talk" is a myth. If they want real intelligence, you use cunning, guile. Even truth drugs are not always reliable.

The best interrogator I knew was a woman. During NATO exercises, when "enemy" forces were captured and subjected to extensive questioning, random sleep patterns, the nude questioning scenario, the "prisoner" was returned to his cell. She showed up dressed as a nurse, a very attractive woman, and went through the motions of taking vital signs, wiping any sweat from his face, chest, etc., all the while making conversation. Almost without fail she walked out with his name, rank unit, mission, unit location, other members names. She never had to hit him once.

What we have going on now is a violation of all the basics of HUMINT...becasue the effort is being led by politicians and not intelligence specialists.