alexava 6,973 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President. This isn't a rhetorical question. What would you do ? It IS a rhetorical question, but I'll address it anyway. Why would torture coerce him to change his mind in the next few hours? Or the next few days? What assurance do I have that he is going to tell something useful? What assurance do I have that this plot is, in fact, real? How did the CIA manage to get this suspect in custody, without any other useful knowledge and leads? Are there no other means of using the information that they do possess to trick him into revealing something useful? Ultimately, it is an unrealistic example presented as a rhetorical question. The problem I find with such logic as presented in your question is that, for example, torturing terrorists is acceptable if there is even the possibility that 3,000 Americans could be saved, but negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable, regardless of that same possibility. Personally, I think they are both unacceptable. "Rhetorical" means "not expecting an answer". I was expecting an answer which is why I said it wasn't rhetorical. You gave an answer that didn't address my question. I didn't ask you about torture. I asked, "What would you do ?". Let's try again. "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." I would, and without hesitation call in Jack Bauer and give him full authority to resolve the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Tipper 430 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President. This isn't a rhetorical question. What would you do ? It IS a rhetorical question, but I'll address it anyway. Why would torture coerce him to change his mind in the next few hours? Or the next few days? What assurance do I have that he is going to tell something useful? What assurance do I have that this plot is, in fact, real? How did the CIA manage to get this suspect in custody, without any other useful knowledge and leads? Are there no other means of using the information that they do possess to trick him into revealing something useful? Ultimately, it is an unrealistic example presented as a rhetorical question. The problem I find with such logic as presented in your question is that, for example, torturing terrorists is acceptable if there is even the possibility that 3,000 Americans could be saved, but negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable, regardless of that same possibility. Personally, I think they are both unacceptable. "Rhetorical" means "not expecting an answer". I was expecting an answer which is why I said it wasn't rhetorical. You gave an answer that didn't address my question. I didn't ask you about torture. I asked, "What would you do ?". Let's try again. "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." What are my options within the scope of law? EDIT: I did answer your question. I answered it with a few questions I would expect a President to ask his advisors (and the CIA) before reaching a decision. And it is still a rhetorical question. You asked a question expecting a difficult or impossible answer, in order to make a point. Considering the context of the conversation, it's obvious where you're going with it. NO, you didn't answer the question Mr. President., and AGAIN, it isn't rhetorical. You're answering the blooming question as evidenced, just not on track. You obfuscate by asking unrelated questions. The assumption is that you know the events to be true. 3,000 lives are dependent on your decision. One person who has the necessary information to avert this catastrophe is in custody but he's unwilling to reveal it. What do you do Mr. President ? You have the freedom to do what you think is wisest. What do you do Mr. President ? Time is ticking. Tick. Tick. Tick...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 "We should never, as a policy, maltreat people under our control, detainees. We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A." - General Barry McCaffrey (ret.) (Fox News Contributor) This is shameful to any decent American. Anyone who defends this behavior is probably beyond redemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President. This isn't a rhetorical question. What would you do ? It IS a rhetorical question, but I'll address it anyway. Why would torture coerce him to change his mind in the next few hours? Or the next few days? What assurance do I have that he is going to tell something useful? What assurance do I have that this plot is, in fact, real? How did the CIA manage to get this suspect in custody, without any other useful knowledge and leads? Are there no other means of using the information that they do possess to trick him into revealing something useful? Ultimately, it is an unrealistic example presented as a rhetorical question. The problem I find with such logic as presented in your question is that, for example, torturing terrorists is acceptable if there is even the possibility that 3,000 Americans could be saved, but negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable, regardless of that same possibility. Personally, I think they are both unacceptable. "Rhetorical" means "not expecting an answer". I was expecting an answer which is why I said it wasn't rhetorical. You gave an answer that didn't address my question. I didn't ask you about torture. I asked, "What would you do ?". Let's try again. "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." What are my options within the scope of law? EDIT: I did answer your question. I answered it with a few questions I would expect a President to ask his advisors (and the CIA) before reaching a decision. And it is still a rhetorical question. You asked a question expecting a difficult or impossible answer, in order to make a point. Considering the context of the conversation, it's obvious where you're going with it. NO, you didn't answer the question Mr. President., and AGAIN, it isn't rhetorical. You're answering the blooming question as evidenced, just not on track. You obfuscate by asking unrelated questions. The assumption is that you know the events to be true. 3,000 lives are dependent on your decision. One person who has the necessary information to avert this catastrophe is in custody but he's unwilling to reveal it. What do you do Mr. President ? You have the freedom to do what you think is wisest. What do you do Mr. President ? Time is ticking. Tick. Tick. Tick...... There is insufficient information upon which any reasonable individual can act. As you say, I'm the President. The CIA comes to me about a plot that is to kill 3,000 people somewhere in the next few hours. They have a person that has information, but he's unwilling to reveal it. Why does he have this information, and why is he unwilling to reveal it? Is he part of the plot, or the mastermind? If so, then he is useless in preventing it at this point. No interrogation will compromise him when he or his cause is within a few hours of success. Is he someone that wants money or asylum/protection in exchange for the information? If so, then pay him and devise a plan to intercede with whatever time is left and proceed. What are his motives? What does he care about aside from whatever those motives are? What is the plot? How did it come within hours of succeeding with our sophisticated surveillance and intelligence apparatus having no useful information or leads other than this person? If we have other leads, how quickly and in what manner can we act upon them? Is this person that we have in custody the Riddler, and do I have Batman at my disposal? Spiderman? What about Optimus Prime? My point is, without the specific details that would accompany the real-world occurrence of such a scenario, I cannot devise anything resembling a wise or even an unwise course of action. My predecessors would be unable to as well. The scenario you have presented me with would invariably result in the death of 3,000 people, and the likely trial and eventual execution of the person in custody. Hardly desirable. In other words, it is something I would normally call a dumb question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 What is decent behavior? Is it being nice to terrorists who have killed a lot Americans? Is it releasing info that may lead to the future deaths of Americans on foreign soil, some of which are serving their country in some capacity? Neither in my book. It is punishing the evil guys who struck first. History will judge who is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 What is decent behavior? Is it being nice to terrorists who have killed a lot Americans? Is it releasing info that may lead to the future deaths of Americans on foreign soil, some of which are serving their country in some capacity? Neither in my book. It is punishing the evil guys who struck first. History will judge who is right. You think evil, disgusting behavior that no person of faith could possibly condone was the right course of action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....would you if they had killed your child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." Absurd. Three thousand people? What, the terrorist are holding three thousand people in an undisclosed location? You will never break the mindset of a terrorist within a few hours. Start notifying every policing agency in the world. Don't waste what precious little time you have. Where was this suspect captured? Who are his known associates? Do we know where any of them are? You'd better be thinking, not hoping for the impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....would you if they had killed your child? While I'm not TT, it's a potentially valid question. If they had killed my child, I would have no business being involved in such a decision until I was no longer emotionally compromised and was capable of being objective. Once my reason and wits had returned to me, I would fail to see how two wrongs would create a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." Absurd. Three thousand people? What, the terrorist are holding three thousand people in an undisclosed location? You will never break the mindset of a terrorist within a few hours. Start notifying every policing agency in the world. Don't waste what precious little time you have. Where was this suspect captured? Who are his known associates? Do we know where any of them are? You'd better be thinking, not hoping for the impossible. Yeah...Yeah... I know I gave it more of an answer than it deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....would you if they had killed your child? While I'm not TT, it's a potentially valid question. If they had killed my child, I would have no business being involved in such a decision until I was no longer emotionally compromised and was capable of being objective. Once my reason and wits had returned to me, I would fail to see how two wrongs would create a right. Agreed. I would favor more traditional means of bringing them to justice, but the behavior we engaged in is morally reprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....would you if they had killed your child? While I'm not TT, it's a potentially valid question. If they had killed my child, I would have no business being involved in such a decision until I was no longer emotionally compromised and was capable of being objective. Once my reason and wits had returned to me, I would fail to see how two wrongs would create a right. Agreed. I would favor more traditional means of bringing them to justice, but the behavior we engaged in is morally reprehensible. It is. I'm still not sure which disturbs me the most about it: the fact that it occurred at all, or the fact that it was officially sanctioned and creative legality employed to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....In this case you are a better man than me. If it was my child, I would not hesitate to put a 38 between his eyes and fire. Sorry Stry, that emotion wouldn't ever subside. To each his own definition, but what Feinstein and the WH have done is morally reprehensible in my book. We threw our own under the bus without batting an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 In this case you are a better man than me. If it was my child, I would not hesitate to put a 38 between his eyes and fire. Sorry Stry, that emotion wouldn't ever subside. To each his own definition, but what Feinstein and the WH have done is morally reprehensible in my book. What you describe is more understandable than what we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT...I guess I fail to see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT...I guess I fail to see that. I understand a father wanting to do what you described. A civilized country never commits the atrocities outlined in this report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 This report is full of distortions and half truths and cherry picking of things. We didn't torture anyone. I suppose we should offer them milk and cookies and ask them nicely and see how that works. The idea of using american courts as if these people were common street criminals is absurd. Some of you just must hate your own country. Obama and DIane Feinstein do. Nobody will trust us again and our intelligence network will be shattered. You did not want to fight them after they attacked us and you don't want to do any thing to try to prevent these attacks. What do you propose we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Tipper 430 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." Absurd. Three thousand people? What, the terrorist are holding three thousand people in an undisclosed location? You will never break the mindset of a terrorist within a few hours. Start notifying every policing agency in the world. Don't waste what precious little time you have. Where was this suspect captured? Who are his known associates? Do we know where any of them are? You'd better be thinking, not hoping for the impossible. On 9/11 2,996 people died. Had one of those hijackers been captured in the 24 hours prior to the event and the event was known to be in motion it might have been prevented. If you couldn't answer those questions you pose, then what would you do ? Remember, you know that the suspect knows the plan. What would you do ? Tick, tick. "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President." Absurd. Three thousand people? What, the terrorist are holding three thousand people in an undisclosed location? You will never break the mindset of a terrorist within a few hours. Start notifying every policing agency in the world. Don't waste what precious little time you have. Where was this suspect captured? Who are his known associates? Do we know where any of them are? You'd better be thinking, not hoping for the impossible. Yeah...Yeah... I know I gave it more of an answer than it deserved. No, you didn't give an answer at all. You posed your questions instead of answering the only one I asked. See, people like you detest what was done to preserve America and with such vehemence that it divides this nation, but when a time-sensitive critical decision has to be made you stall, and you're only responding in the imaginary. What would you do in the real world ? Many patriots were faced with such a dilemma to do their duty to protect us, faithfully, even when Senators and Representatives demean them, even lying that they never knew what was "really being done" when they knew exactly what was being done and asked no questions. God bless them for doing their duty to protect this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Tipper 430 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT...I guess I fail to see that. I understand a father wanting to do what you described. A civilized country never commits the atrocities outlined in this report. Name some of the atrocities please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....in the past I would agree with you. But the world has changed and in today's world the enemy doesn't understand being civil and we can't treat them in the civil manner of the past. JMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT...I guess I fail to see that. I understand a father wanting to do what you described. A civilized country never commits the atrocities outlined in this report. Name some of the atrocities please. Learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT....in the past I would agree with you. But the world has changed and in today's world the enemy doesn't understand being civil and we can't treat them in the civil manner of the past. JMHO. We are who we are. If we let them change us, haven't they won? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT...As I said earlier we now just kill them outright with drones and air strikes, often with collateral damage. And with no chance of interrogation. is that morally better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Tipper 430 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 TT...I guess I fail to see that. I understand a father wanting to do what you described. A civilized country never commits the atrocities outlined in this report. Name some of the atrocities please. Learn to read. You're the accuser. What are the crimes ? I bet you don't even know. Hurry, Google closes at 9 p.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Speaking of reading, this book is a very good read on this subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.