Interrogation Methods for Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf

[Sayonara]

We are veering off dangerously down the "let's turn another thread into war on Iraq soap-boxing" road guys.

[Phi for All]

Thanks Sayo, I needed that. Btw, did you realize that this thread is the first hit when you google "Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf"?

 

Tying together what we've been discussing, why does anyone think torture will get answers we can trust anyway? Terrorists work in compartmented cells so damaging knowledge is minimized, no one person can divulge too much. And by fueling religious hatred further by using such techniques, aren't we just insuring they'll never work?

[TimeTraveler]

The only way to fight terrorism is by talking peace. Take the fire out of their arguments and suddenly they can't find followers. Without followers who are willing to die for the cause and act as fuel' date=' terrorism suffocates and is snuffed out.

 

Just. Like. Fire.[/quote']

 

B-I-N-G-O

 

All we are doing now is creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

 

Back to Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf.

 

What do we gain from interrogating him? Whats he going to say that we don't already know? They don't have secret bases, or spies, or intelligence teams. They are basically a large group of the most organized disorganized people who hate us in Iraq. The only thing I can picture him saying that we might not already know would be: "Thank you for helping us recruit more followers."

[TimeTraveler]

We are veering off dangerously down the "let's turn another thread into war on Iraq soap-boxing" road guys.

 

Your right Sayo, Im sorry but I have to make one last comment. (It's that whole inescapable thing in human nature )

 

If you are talking to me, the answer is that our troops are in Iraq to save American lives.

 

Diagnosis: It's called fear, your government has been playing with your level of fear from day one. (Don't take it personal they have been playing with mine too, all of ours) They learned the tactic here:

 

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country - Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg War trials.

[atinymonkey]

Actually, that a good point. During the Nuremberg War trials there was no concept of torture to illicit confessions. The idea that Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf can be judged and questioned in a more depraved manor is horrific.

[Phi for All]

Actually, that a good point. During the Nuremberg War trials there was no concept of torture to illicit confessions. The idea that Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf can be judged and questioned in a more depraved manor is horrific.

To me, this is the perfect summation of my feelings on the matter. In just sixty-odd years, we have sunk so low that we can contemplate the torture of prisoners and not be shocked at ourselves. The enemy hasn't gotten any worse, but we seem to have lost our humanity.

[Phi for All]

Is it partly television & cinema that lead us to believe torture methods are acceptable? When we see the hero get fried for awhile with a car battery, then shrug off the effects and go on to vanquish the evil enemy, does it make something so heinous less objectionable? Do we really believe there are no long term effects of torture or are we simply justifying that, "Hey, they were evil first, it's OK, you know, an eye for an eye"?

[syntax252]

Is it partly television & cinema that lead us to believe torture methods are acceptable? When we see the hero get fried for awhile with a car battery, then shrug off the effects and go on to vanquish the evil enemy, does it make something so heinous less objectionable? Do we really believe there are no long term effects of torture or are we simply justifying that, "Hey, they were evil first, it's OK, you know, an eye for an eye"?

 

No, I think it is empathy for the victums of terrorists.

 

Tell me that had a terrorist captured your wife and buried her in the desert with enough oxygen to last her for 12 hrs, that you would not favor any method of extracting the burial site out of him.

[Phi for All]

Tell me that had a terrorist captured your wife and buried her in the desert with enough oxygen to last her for 12 hrs, that you would not favor any method[/b'] of extracting the burial site out of him.

I can imagine many similar scenarios where I, as an individual and not a government, might use illegal methods to save my immediate family. But as Ophiolite pointed out earlier in this thread, I would expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for my crime. I would do this willingly to save my family.

 

And I could sleep at night.

[syntax252]

I can imagine many similar scenarios where I' date=' as an individual and not a government, might use illegal methods to save my immediate family. But as Ophiolite pointed out earlier in this thread, I would expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for my crime. I would do this willingly to save my family.

 

And I could sleep at night.[/quote']

 

And if my government does the same thing to protect the citizens of the US, then I could sleep well also.

[Aardvark]

You say bad behavior is inescapable, then you follow by saying once we realize and accept it we can find ways of behaving decently. That sounds like a contradiction unless I am misunderstanding you.

 

I am saying that humans possess inescapable urges and instincts towards behaviour that can be bad. Xenophobia for instance seems to be an instinct which is pretty deeply hardwired in our natures, it can be seem from the jungle inhabitants of Parguay to the people of the 24hr hour cities of Melbourne or London.

 

I am not saying that it is inescapable that we follow those urges, but it is inescapable that they exist. In order to find better ways to act it is necessary to fully acknowledge them, then we can better deal with them.

 

Sometimes people use human nature as an excuse for behaving badly (a weakness of some on the right) and conversely some people try to deny its existense. (a weakness of some on the left). I hope i have made clear to you that i think both of those approaches are flawed.

[john5746]

Iraq had no affiliation to any terrorist group. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

 

I have heard Saddam paid the families of Hamas suicide bombers. Not a reason to goto war, and not an American problem, but that would be supporting terrorism, if it is true.

[Phi for All]

And if my government does the same thing to protect the citizens of the US, then I could sleep well also.

So if a government can show that it committed what the world community considers an illegal act in order to protect it's citizens, it's OK by you? Or does that only go for what the US does?

[Sayonara]

I have heard Saddam paid the families of Hamas suicide bombers. Not a reason to goto war, and not an American problem, but that would be supporting terrorism, if it is true.

One would imagine these payments to be reconciliatory, rather than "bribes", although it's difficult to see it that way from the point of view of a society that does not need to spawn suicide bombers in order to repel cultural intrusions.

[john5746]

One would imagine these payments to be reconciliatory, rather than "bribes", although it's difficult to see it that way from the point of view of a society that does not need to spawn suicide bombers in order to repel cultural intrusions.

 

So, he was either stupid, and thought these payments would not be viewed as atta-boys and help spurn more bombers, or he was making payments for a job well done.

[Sayonara]

Assuming you mean Saddam, I can think of other motives. You're simply choosing the one that works best for an anti-Saddam theme, versus one that sounds stupid.

 

Also consider that when we 'hear' (your word, not mine) that Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, it may (a) not be an accurate description of events, (b) may not be in the least bit true, or © may not actually have been Saddam as such.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a payment being an Atta-boy. Surely that is property that is attributed to humans?

 

 

Not a pro-Saddam post, but a pro-objectivity post

[syntax252]

So if a government can show that it committed what the world community considers an illegal act in order to protect it's citizens, it's OK by you? Or does that only go for what the US does?

 

Well, would you consider terrorism to be a ligitimate act? Why should we play by different rules that the people who are killing our citizens? Because we like White hats?

[blike]

This thread is really, really tangled, so I'm just going to pick up where I left off.

 

Be careful - you are blending the concept of life as "a quality of the living" with the concept of life as is "possessed by the individual". The difference is that one is a continuous measure' date=' the other occurs in discrete units.

When I talk about life being sacred, I am referring to the former.[/quote']Just to clarify, you believe that the concept of life that is sacred is the "quality of living" rather than the life as "possessed by the individual". Am I understanding correctly?

 

I'm saying that that is a problem' date=' and as usual for the purposes of convenience people fall back on it without consideration for the wider ramifications.

That's the part I object to. Appealing to common practice doesn't change the fact that subjectivity can spoil as well as save.[/quote']Indeed, I'm not saying that it is right. That's how it is, whether or not we admit it.

 

If there is only a subjective scale for valuing life, then surely it's just as valid to shoot them both, or walk away giggling, as it is to help either one of them.

Those are both decisions that would be likely be made. I've heard people state things such as: "why don't we just nuke Israel and the palestinians", or alternately, "just let them kill each other off". I'm not saying these decisions are justified, I'm saying that as humans, it is our nature to place relative value. In any of the aforementioned outcomes (choosing sides, leaving them be, or destroying them both), a value judgement has been made.

 

This is indeed a problem, but the only solution seems to be forceful supression of these tendencies. Even then it is only a philosophical or intellectual facade, one which I chose not to put on earlier. I don't believe one can will them to disappear completely. Thus, I believe, that even though you find the attitude I presented reprehensible, all humans harbor on some level the same innate inhibitions or tendencies (justified or not).

 

That is why I said I do not value his life as much as my own life or another life.

[Sayonara]

This thread is really, really tangled, so I'm just going to pick up where I left off.

I don't blame you. I can hear the split monster putting on his work boots.

 

 

Just to clarify, you believe that the concept of life that is sacred is the "quality of living" rather than the life as "possessed by the individual". Am I understanding correctly?

A minor alteration I know, but rather it is the fact of "the homogenous property by which things live".

 

This is something that is evident in equal measure in all living things, has no attributes by which arbitrary values can be derived from its study, and is irreplaceable.

 

 

Indeed, I'm not saying that it is right. That's how it is, whether or not we admit it.

So do you agree that it is a sorry state of affairs, or are you able to rationalise non-consideration?

It's not really critical to the argument, but I feel that this way of viewing the problem is a good way to assess our own standing on the matter of the value of life.

 

 

Those are both decisions that would be likely be made. I've heard people state things such as: "why don't we just nuke Israel and the palestinians", or alternately, "just let them kill each other off". I'm not saying these decisions are justified, I'm saying that as humans, it is our nature to place relative value. In any of the aforementioned outcomes (choosing sides, leaving them be, or destroying them both), a value judgement has been made.

I am familiar with the concept of value judgements in this sense. What I am trying to divine is an answer to the earlier issue we had of whether subjectively-alloted inter-relational values are the only means by which we make such judgements.

 

It seems to me that if we are to make the claim, for instance, that a life has no inherent value, and it can only be valued through the judgements (and I use the word in the same loose sense I think you intended) of others, then we have a problem.

 

Consider:

 

If we take any given person, the value of their life will be considerably higher (by orders of magnitude, in fact) in the view of members of their family than it will in the view of any others (with the possible exception of close friends, but they are not so easily quantifiable and possibly also time-dependent.)

 

Does this mean then, that in general the life of someone with a high number of family members is more valuable than, say, an orphan?

 

I don't think we should discount the inherent value of life simply because we have problems quantifying it, or identifying its roots.

 

 

This is indeed a problem, but the only solution seems to be forceful supression of these tendencies. Even then it is only a philosophical or intellectual facade, one which I chose not to put on earlier. I don't believe one can will them to disappear completely. Thus, I believe, that even though you find the attitude I presented reprehensible, all humans harbor on some level the same innate inhibitions or tendencies (justified or not).

But we do this anyway, in many ways. Our entire civilisation has been built - and continues to develop - through the supression of biological urges, and the (often self-imposed) enforcement of particular economic* models.

 

 

That is why I said I do not value his life as much as my own life or another life.

Then I have a simple question. Bearing in mind that self-sacrifice is not mythological, under what minimum circumstances would you place someone else's life before your own?

 

 

 

* in the financial, energy flow, and genetic fitness senses.

[syntax252]

I'm sure that extreme measures could be taken if they were needed to save lives. I don't know what kind of things they woul do though. Would they not give them food or water until they talk? Are we talking torture? He is an probable terrerist... but is is right? I think he gave up alot of his rights when he dicided to hurt people.

 

And so do I.

 

If we delude ourselves into thinking that we can treat these terrorists in a civilized fashion, we will do so at the expense of our own citizens.

 

I say get whatever information he has whatever it takes.

[Sayonara]

Temporary closure while I move all off-topic Iraq posts to here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8685

[Sayonara]

Moderators: feel free to delete any further Iraq soap-boxing posts from this thread, or move them to the thread specified above. Your choice.

[YT2095]

pity and Drag`n`Drop system wasn`t available, I`de have a party

[Macroscopic]

I believe it would be more immoral to have life-saving information within our reach, and not use whatever methods are neccesary to get it, then to torture a mass murderer into giving us life-saving information. I believe that in this case torture is the lesser of two evils.

[Sayonara]

For the reasons already stated, you cannot guarantee that. Not even close.