Interrogation Methods for Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf

[-Demosthenes-]

The question isn't about valuing one life over another, its valuing many lives over the comforts of a single criminal one.

[Aardvark]

Loyalty doesn't actually make a life more valuable though, does it? Saying that someone is likely to prefer one person over another has nothing to do with the actual value of those two people's lives.

 

The point i was trying to make is that is is impossible to be perfectly objective in valuing lives. To do so would run against such fundamental tenets of human nature as to be completely unworkable.

 

We have to accept that people will assign higher values on some lives than others. For instance people will value the lives of family memebers more than that of strangers. People will also value the lives of members of their tribe (country) more than the lives of members of another tribe.

 

You are right, it is a problem. But arguing that human nature is ultimately unjust doesn't change the fact of that nature. I think we should accept the reality and work from that starting point.

 

 

You argued against the main points and came to the same conclusion. How... perfectly freakish.

 

Sometimes you can reach the same destination by different routes.

 

Or maybe i'm just a freak

[Aardvark]

Unfortunately your scenario is not relevent to this discussion!!!

 

Yes, it is relevant.

 

Measuring the value of a mans life is central to the discussion of how a captured terrorist should be treated.

 

Perhaps you would like to contribute some ideas or thoughts to the discussion. Or are you only capable of sneering?

[Sayonara]

The point i was trying to make is that is is impossible to be perfectly objective in valuing lives. To do so would run against such fundamental tenets of human nature as to be completely unworkable.

 

We have to accept that people will assign higher values on some lives than others. For instance people will value the lives of family memebers more than that of strangers. People will also value the lives of members of their tribe (country) more than the lives of members of another tribe.

 

You are right' date=' it is a problem. But arguing that human nature is ultimately unjust doesn't change the fact of that nature. I think we should accept the reality and work from that starting point.[/quote']

It's not just human nature - it's a prevelant behavioural trait in many social organisms, for selective reasons. But it serves little actual purpose in humans, except to justify treating each other badly.

 

For an advanced species, we don't seem to be terribly advanced.

[Aardvark]

It's not just human nature - it's a prevelant behavioural trait in many social organisms, for selective reasons. But it serves little actual purpose in humans, except to justify treating each other badly.

 

I agree that it does result in treating others badly. I'm not arguing that human nature is a nice thing. I'm arguing that it is inescapable and we have to accept the role it plays in our behaviour. Once we accept it as a fact then we can move on to finding ways of behaving decently. Some aspects of human nature are a problem. We have to recognise the problem first in order to deal with it. It can't be wished away.

 

 

For an advanced species, we don't seem to be terribly advanced.

 

Yet another point we can agree upon ... how freakish.

[Sayonara]

I agree that it does result in treating others badly. I'm not arguing that human nature is a nice thing. I'm arguing that it is inescapable and we have to accept the role it plays in our behaviour. Once we accept it as a fact then we can move on to finding ways of behaving decently. Some aspects of human nature are a problem. We have to recognise the problem first in order to deal with it. It can't be wished away.

If we are going to go on to find ways of behaving decently, then it isn't inescapable.

 

I would argue we have the capacity to move on now. Just not, perhaps, the group inclination. Which is a very sad thing.

[syntax252]

If the man is a terrorist, and if you know that he has information about another terrorist attack where people would be killed, then get the information out of him, whatever it takes.

 

My preferrence would be drugs, but I would be open to any suggestion that would yeild the information.

 

These people are human garbage, they don't deserve to be treated according to any "rules."

[Phi for All]

My preferrence would be drugs, but I would be open to any suggestion that would yeild the information.

Truth serum was my immediate thought as well, but when I looked into it, I found that I had a very Hollywood concept of them (like when bullets strike near the hero and are heard at the same time). Truth drugs are a lot like hypnosis. You can't force a person to do something that is outside their nature. If loyalty to the cause is strong, or if by divulging info to the enemy they will lose their place in heaven, truth serums won't work in most cases.

These people are human garbage' date=' they don't deserve to be treated according to any "rules."[/quote']You probably feel this way about them because they've done horrendous, inhumane things like bombing, beheading and... well, torturing people. How can we denounce them for it if we are going to do it too?

[syntax252]

Truth serum was my immediate thought as well, but when I looked into it, I found that I had a very Hollywood concept of them (like when bullets strike near the hero and are heard at the same time[/i']). Truth drugs are a lot like hypnosis. You can't force a person to do something that is outside their nature. If loyalty to the cause is strong, or if by divulging info to the enemy they will lose their place in heaven, truth serums won't work in most cases.You probably feel this way about them because they've done horrendous, inhumane things like bombing, beheading and... well, torturing people. How can we denounce them for it if we are going to do it too?

 

 

Demouncing them comes second to saving lives.

 

It would be a great crime of our own if we stood on principal at the cost of the lives of our citizens.

 

We need to realize that if we insist on being the good guys while the terrorists have bo rules to follow, we do so at the expense of American lives.

[Sayonara]

In that case, surely you'd prefer to support removal of troops from Iraq, since that is cheaper and less risky?

[Phi for All]

We need to realize that if we insist on being the good guys while the terrorists have bo rules to follow, we do so at the expense of American lives.

I'm sure you've noticed an erosion of our American values over the years. We were the good guys in days gone by, in large part due to our adherence to the philosophy that we will not stoop to the level of those who would oppress others. We got to wear the white hat because we stood against tyranny and oppression and offered freedom as a basic right for all who sided with us.

 

If your bio is correct, you were a kid during WWII, but you could have fought in Korea. Did this erosion of values make Vietnam possible? To me, each war since WWII has seen the US become dirtier and dirtier. Has that really benefitted us?

 

You earn the right to freedom by NOT acting like the animals you are fighting against.

 

We have always made our share of mistakes. There are things that go on behind the scenes in war that aren't pretty, but in the old days they weren't public knowledge either. Now we know about them in vivid detail, and I think we need to take an even stronger stance against oppression in all it's forms, because now we know the truth. I want to be absolutely sure I'm fighting for a just cause, not just 'cause I'm stronger.

[TimeTraveler]

I agree that it does result in treating others badly. I'm not arguing that human nature is a nice thing. I'm arguing that it is inescapable and we have to accept the role it plays in our behaviour. Once we accept it as a fact then we can move on to finding ways of behaving decently. Some aspects of human nature are a problem. We have to recognise the problem first in order to deal with it. It can't be wished away.

 

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.

 

Your right it cannot be wished away. As far as recognizing the problem, I think the world does, us folks in America seem to be the only ones having a hard time seeing it. Our media plays a huge role in that, when we watch the news we only hear about the American lives lost, we rarely hear about the Iraqi civilians who have died, we do not hear about the fighters against us in Iraq, we hear about a handful of extremists who do terrible things. We do not hear about the man who is fighting against us using all the elements of our standards of "proper warfare''. In the minds eye of Americans anyone in Iraq that is fighting against us is a terrorist. So if I was an Iraqi and my son was killed by a stray bullet, and I picked up a gun to protect my wife and kids would I then too become a terrorist? We are shooting first and asking questions later and alot of good human beings are losing their lives.

 

Now I am not saying there are no terrorists in Iraq, there obviously are, however most of the people we are killing are not terrorists, and it is at that point we need to ask ourselves, what is the message that us Americans (and suprise! it is not just Americans) are sending to the world?

 

I think about the world and it's ways, then I think about change... we are not progressing any ideals for the human race here, we are going backwords.

[syntax252]

I'm sure you've noticed an erosion of our American values over the years. We were the good guys in days gone by' date=' in large part due to our adherence to the philosophy that we will not stoop to the level of those who would oppress others. We got to wear the white hat because we stood against tyranny and oppression and offered freedom as a basic right for all who sided with us.

 

If your bio is correct, you were a kid during WWII, but you could have fought in Korea. Did this erosion of values make Vietnam possible? To me, each war since WWII has seen the US become dirtier and dirtier. Has that really benefitted us?

 

You earn the right to freedom by NOT acting like the animals you are fighting against.

 

We have always made our share of mistakes. There are things that go on behind the scenes in war that aren't pretty, but in the old days they weren't public knowledge either. Now we know about them in vivid detail, and I think we need to take an even stronger stance against oppression in all it's forms, because now we know the truth. I want to be absolutely sure I'm fighting for a just cause, not just 'cause I'm stronger.[/quote']

 

I was just short of 5 years old when Pearle Harbor occured. I was too young for Korea, being 13 in 1950 and too old for Vietnam being 26 with 4 kids in 1963.

 

I was lucky.

 

I just think that the government's primary job is to protect it's citizens. If that means we get our hands dirty, then so be it, but I will be damned if I can see the sense in letting a terrorist withold information that would save American lives just because we like White hats.

[syntax252]

In that case, surely you'd prefer to support removal of troops from Iraq, since that is cheaper and less risky?

 

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

[budullewraagh]

could you support that statement and explain just how these troops are saving american lives?

[Sayonara]

If you are talking to me, the answer is that our troops are[/b'] in Iraq to save American lives.

Well, it's certainly nice if they think that.

[-Demosthenes-]

If you are talking to me, the answer is that our troops are[/b'] in Iraq to save American lives.

Or rather they are there to improve the lives of Irag citizens. And if they leave now, before a democratic government is set up the things would get bad quick.

[Phi for All]

And if they leave now, before a democratic government is set up the things would get bad quick.

Worse quick. I think you meant worse quick.

 

We thought it was bad before. Invading made it really bad. How does staying there make it better or save more lives? Wouldn't you have to kill everyone who could possibly ever turn to terrorism to end the terrorist threat? Could this be one of those times when it's better to fight fire with water rather than more fire?

[-Demosthenes-]

The US has taken a powerful tyrant out of power, and are combating the terrorist group that are terrorizing the people. Invating it made everything better, and things continue to improve.

"Fighting fire with fire" may be a nice analagy, but it has nothing to do with the present situation.

[Sayonara]

Or rather they are there to improve the lives of Irag citizens. And if they leave now, before a democratic government is set up the things would get bad quick.

I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

[-Demosthenes-]

In that case, surely you'd prefer to support removal of troops from Iraq, since that is cheaper and less risky?

How is that move relevant?

[Sayonara]

How is that move relevant?

Because if syntax252 is proposing that we are in Iraq to save American lives (which, incidentally, completely misses the point of this thread) then that is a critical question; if one only compares the deaths of Americans due to Iraqi terrorism over the past... ooh, say decade, with the US death toll so far in Iraq over the past 10 months, the significance is obvious.

[Phi for All]

Wow. Who have you been listening to? Nobody was terrorizing Iraq under Sadaam, so don't EVEN try to use that. The fact that the people are being terrorized now is because we overthrew their powerful tyrant, leaving a vacuum which we were incapable of filling, since we went in with no exit strategy and went out of our way to ignore their culture.

 

There is no doubt that Sadaam was a bad guy, but he was NOT the fountain of terrorism you are painting him as now.

"Fighting fire with fire" may be a nice analagy, but it has nothing to do with the present situation.

I think it has everything to do with it! Terrorists pray that we'll get mad and strike them back. In fact, the harder we strike back, the more terrorists we create. They blow up a building, we level a city. Torture prisoners for information. In the eyes of their followers can't you see the injustice that represents? Can't you place yourself in their shoes for just a moment and see that? I'm really not asking you to sympathize with them, just to see that they are just as capable of becoming enraged at injustice and barbarism as we are. Who is the bigger agressor here in their eyes, the superpower or the small middle Eastern country with no leader?

 

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, terrorism suffocates and is snuffed out.

 

Just. Like. Fire.

[Tetrahedrite]

I think the individuals who believe that going into Iraq has made American citizens safer from terrorism need to wake up and smell the gunpowder!!

All that the US has done is created more terrorists where there were none before. Surely you don't buy the drivel that says that the world is now safer without Saddam. As Phi for All said, the US has just given the Muslim faith a further excuse to hate you [the USA]. The problem the US has is that it is creating enemies faster than it can kill them off!

I honestly believe in decades to come history will show that unilaterally invading Iraq was the worst mistakes ever made by the US. A very large portion of the world now believe that the US is barbaric and tyrranical (whether true or not) and this surely will result in more US citizens losing their lives in years to come.

[john5746]

The right is already trying to blame Iraq problems on anti-war efforts. People are saying things will go much smoother and better if everyone would quit complaining.

 

This was done in Vietnam also.