"24" is just a TV show. But in her Los Angeles Times column of today, America Tortures (yawn), Rosa Brooks cites the actions of the show's characters -- and the American public's reaction to them -- as evidence of the way in which we have become inured to U.S. government-sponsored torture. In doing so, Brooks unwittingly raises another, more interesting issue.Writes Rosa: "If you need any more evidence that the American public has gotten blasé about torture, consider the hit Fox action drama '24.' The show featured 67 torture scenes during its first five seasons, and most of those depicted torture being used by 'heroic' U.S. counter-terror agents."
Note Brooks' placement of scare quotes around "heroic." For the enlightened folks of the liberal media elite, Jack Bauer is no hero -- he is best viewed as a torturer. But Brooks leaves an important question unanswered.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
And so the question arises, if torturing people with crucial knowledge about the imminent explosion of nuclear weapons to kill Americans is off Ms. Brooks' refined table, just what would she propose? We can joke about subjecting terrorists to a reading of Barbara Boxer's Senate floor speeches. But in all seriousness, what would Ms. Brooks do? If it had been her loved ones in Valencia along with thousands of other people about to die, and the person with life-or-death knowledge was bound before her, would she have been unwilling to push the plunger on the torture drug that would make him talk? And if not, what?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What about the show Alias? I
February 23, 2007 - 08:47 ET by Conservative in the ArtsWhat about the show Alias? I loved that show until it got weird when Jen became a monther. That show had torture all the time.
But but but...being tortured
February 23, 2007 - 09:05 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveBut but but...being tortured by Jennifer Garner is pleasureable...isn't it?
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
On Jennifer Garner
February 24, 2007 - 21:50 ET by UnsaneJennifer Garner is indeed hot...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Iraq defeat is coming to ou
February 23, 2007 - 08:56 ET by JDWIraq defeat is coming to our drama. Having invaded news media, dems, education..., defeat works it's way on into our nightly entertainment.
JDW
Wounded skier. Corrections have been causing time-outs so mistakes will be made.
New pro-adoption dems, what about replacing abortions?
“… would she have been un
February 23, 2007 - 09:02 ET by Dave High“… would she have been unwilling to push the plunger on the torture drug that would make him talk? And if not, what?”
I love it when conservatives push intellectual arguments in support of torture, despite the fact that it has proven to be a highly unreliable means of getting accurate information and that it does little more than make America a pariah in the national community. Liberty for all and torture for some! Somehow it just doesn’t ring true, does it? Perhaps a little depraved, no?
Regards, Dave High
Why not quote that entire sen
February 23, 2007 - 09:16 ET by CarpareusWhy not quote that entire sentence Dave as opposed to your portion in italics?
If it had been her loved ones in Valencia along with thousands of other people about to die, and the person with life-or-death knowledge was bound before her, would she have been unwilling to push the plunger on the torture drug that would make him talk? And if not, what?
Well, to paraphrase the max
February 23, 2007 - 09:24 ET by motherbeltWell, to paraphrase the maxim of our courts system, better that a million innocent people die than one terrorist have his "civil rights" violated.
Edit: "innocent" added
"Conservatives"?
February 23, 2007 - 09:17 ET by Mark Finkelstein"Conservatives"? You mean, like Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has supported the use of torture in ticking bomb cases?
And he's right to do that.
February 23, 2007 - 10:22 ET by BruzillaAnd he's right to do that. Dave cites an important point, but like most folks who are advocating rather than advising, he only makes half a point. Torture has been proven to be ineffective at getting people to disclose reliable information, but that's usually only when the people have no reliable information to give. Dave's view of torture is one that's been generated over the years by groups using torture to extract information from people they thought were guilty, not necessarily those they knew were guilty. If you round up a bunch of people and torture them, odds are excellent you won't get any useful information.
The reason the CIA's efforts yielded great results was they waterboarded people who they knew had information to give. Torture is extremely effective in getting reliable information from someone who has information to give. It's only ineffective when used on innocent or unknowledgeable people.
Well Dave, torture may not
February 23, 2007 - 09:19 ET by MightyMouthWell Dave, torture may not always be effective but apparantly Waterboarding can be.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You're righty there High. If
February 23, 2007 - 09:19 ET by contraryYou're righty there High. If only those occupying Americans would adopt techniques like the Iraqi freedom fighters, would there image improve. Note the international outrage and domestic protests against that Nazi Bush Junta because they ordered the torture in contrast to the much respected freedom fighters as they try to survive. Again, well said High.
Well, I don't blame High for
February 23, 2007 - 09:28 ET by contraryWell, I don't blame High for running off. Nothing more needs to be said with this argument. Regards
Dave, do I have to ask...agai
February 23, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDave, do I have to ask...again? And it isn't even noon yet!
You sound like John Kerry. I know to you that's probably the biggest compliment you've ever had...but around here it just sad.
If lives are in the balance, why wouldn't you use all methods within your power to try and avert disaster? The Left has this unbelievably limitless capacity to prevent any pain, suffering, or death (except when an unborn baby or a despotic dictator or a city full of innocent people are involved). It's mind boggling that people on the Left would not feel one bit bad if a city full of innocent people are murdered by a terrorist's bomb--so long as the terrorist isn't tortured in the (unlikely) event that we catch him and know there is a 'ticking time bomb'.
'Torture' may not be the most effective method but, it could still get results. Many cancer patients are told a certain procedure may have a 5% success rate, but take that risk anyway because if it is successful it may prolong/improve their life. I'd rather take a shot at even a 1% chance and be wrong than to not try at all...after all it could save innocent lives.
I'd rather be a terrorist 'tortured' by the United States than to be an American kidnapped/imprisoned by a terrorist or any other country in the world.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Aw, c'mon guys. Give superg
February 23, 2007 - 10:13 ET by MikeBAw, c'mon guys. Give supergenius Dave a break here. Under the circumstances described, I'm sure that instead of torture, if we only let Mr. High go into the interrogation room and talk nice with the terrorist, why, I'm sure the terrorist would see the error of his (or her, don't want to be sexist here) ways and disclose all the information Dave would like to know. Terrorists are such reasonable, rational people, just like Dave High. I am sure they would bond and communicate because they are so simpatico. Yes, from here on out, the U.S. Government should send Dave High to Iraq or Afghanistan any time they wish to find out some information from a terrorist. We have no need for crude methods like scopalomine, sodium pentathol, sodium amytal, waterboarding, or torture. We have superDave here who can peacefully, calmly, rationally, and reasonably talk with them and convince them to be nice.
Dave, in case you are uncertain, that was a HUGE dose of sarcasm. I thought I might explicityly tell you, as you have a distinct inability to discern reality.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Dave High...YOU! obviously, h
February 23, 2007 - 10:06 ET by bassndudeDave High...YOU! obviously, have never been in a situation where someone you had captured, knew something you really, really needed to know, to save lives and were limited to the amount of time you had to extract that information. Had you ever been in that situation, you would know that your "highly unreliable means of getting" information is in reality, a very reliable means of extracting accurate information. It all depends on the application and can yield results within minutes. Sometimes not, but for the most part it works wonders.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
dave high = troll
February 23, 2007 - 10:25 ET by florida_chadI love the smell of troll in the morning. Please prepare mine med well.
Dave, it sure would be nice i
February 24, 2007 - 22:07 ET by UnsaneDave, it sure would be nice if you studied some history for a change, and at least TRIED to grasp human nature.
America will only be loved universally by the world When It Is Gone (hat tip to Nightwish). Please recall that back in April 1986, when Libya was rightly punished for its shenanigans in Europe and the Med at that time when it got hit with Eldorado Canyon, only two countries supported the United States in the U.N.: Britain (whose bases were used in the operation) and Israel. But it essentially shut Libya the hell up. Why would I dare turn over American security to the rest of the world? Why have the wolves guard the hen-house?
It seems you want a drastically weakened America. But then, that is fitting: you are pissed off daily that the United States isn't more like the rotting, failing EU: a place that routinely steals from its producers and thus discourages more from coming along, and is reduced to mewling and whining about world affairs, for they have LONG turned their backs on the ability to project their power around the world.
I, on the other hand, advocate that the United States should be respected by its allies and FEARED by everyone else. Machiavelli (1469-1521) tells us that to be loved is nice, but if you are put in the position where you must choose between being loved and being feared, pick being feared every single time.
Violence, the threat thereof (and the severe application thereof) ALWAYS works. Violence has worked everywhere it has been tried. What, you think the Germans left France because we ASKED? Did we ask the Japanese for the Phillipines back, pretty please, with sugar on top? Hell, did King George III give the nation you despise (for not being like the rotting EU), hold in contempt, and take for granted, its independence out of the kindness of his heart one fine day?
As for torture: I'm not much of a fan, but then, Machiavelli (I kept a copy of The Prince on my desk in plain view of all when in the AF) suggested that sometimes good men must "enter into evil" in order to achieve a greater good. Liberty for all sometimes means being a mean SOB to your enemy; indeed, that is in fact necessary for democratic nations to survive. But then, I do not expect you to understand any political thought that cannot fit on a bumper sticker.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Gee, last time I checked, &
February 23, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Uncle John"24" is still just a television show, right?
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Ask Dave- if he's even seen i
February 23, 2007 - 09:41 ET by CarpareusAsk Dave- if he's even seen it that is.
Exactly. It is highly unlikel
February 23, 2007 - 09:51 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveExactly. It is highly unlikely that we would ever really see a scenario like the one on the show. Terrorist attacks use the element of surprise. Having the terrorist responsible in custody before an attack has happened makes a great television/movie plot, but in reality it is pretty unlikely.
John Matrix: "Sully, remember when I told you I'd kill you last?"
Sully: "Yeah! Yeah! You did! You said you'd kill me last!"
John Matrix: "I lied."
That's just great action movie stuff...not real life.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
John Matrix: "You're a
February 23, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Uncle JohnJohn Matrix: "You're a funny guy, Sully. I'll kill you last."
Some of my favorite Ahnold movie lines. Thanks for the reminder.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Yup. So's The Daily Show. :
February 23, 2007 - 11:28 ET by balboaYup. So's The Daily Show. :-)
Ah, but I'd like to argue a
February 23, 2007 - 11:47 ET by DyneAh, but I'd like to argue a major difference; 24 is exciting, TDS is the real torture. The good news? We can turn it off if we want to.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
But conservatives don't get
February 23, 2007 - 11:48 ET by Jack BauerBut conservatives don't get their "news" from 24.
Unlike The Daily Show! I believe viewer surverys have shown that this comedy show is the prime source of "news" for many of its devotees.
balboa, only you could equivocate Daily Show with 24.
February 23, 2007 - 11:48 ET by acaiguanabalboa, only you could equivocate Daily Show with 24.
The Daily Show specifically topically references George Bush in the most vile, nasty and demeaning way possible for its entire length and frequency on the air.
24 is a show that is purely fictional with fictional Presidents and characters.
Man, I don't comment on your posts much anymore because they are so inane and seem so reasonable, but they are in reality cheap attempts to defend the Liberal Left Wing Nutcase POV about our President and our country.
Have another cup of coffee.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
"Inane"?! AIEEEE!
February 23, 2007 - 11:58 ET by balboa"Inane"?! AIEEEE!!! "Cheap"?! HARRUMPH! HARRUMPH!
My point is that some conservatives bemoan the influence of The Daily Show, just as some liberals bemoan the influence of 24. But they're both just TV shows. Yes, lots of people get their "news" from The Daily Show, supposedly, but what you don't see is how they use or interpret that "news." You assume the worst; so do liberals with 24.
I don't assume the worst balboa.
February 23, 2007 - 12:08 ET by acaiguanaI don't assume the worst balboa.
I make no connection whatsoever between the two shows. You did that.
It is my opinion that the people who watch the Daily Show watch it because they want to hear cheap shallow Democrat talking points and laugh at Bush.
I assume the people who watch 24 are looking for entertainment also; but they know the difference between reality and fantasy.
The whole 'torture' canard is exactly that. A canard. The United States does not 'routinely' torture prisoners for information. But you'd never know that from watching the Daily Show; you would know it from watching Jack Bauer.
I notice the twit that wrote this article had to go over 5 years of the show to pick out 60 plus incidents of 'torture'. And each of these incidents would represent 'reality' in the viewer's mind?
And if you persist in your conflating the two shows, riddle me this.
How can a Resolution in the House or Senate not affect our troop morale negatively; our will to fight this war as Americans negatively; and send a message to our enemies that Democrats are on their side, positively...
and some show on TV turn our troops into torturers?
That is 'inane' my friend.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I assume the people who wat
February 23, 2007 - 12:43 ET by JDWI assume the people who watch 24 are looking for entertainment also; but they know the difference between reality and fantasy.
The whole 'torture' canard is exactly that. A canard. The United States does not 'routinely' torture prisoners for information. But you'd never know that from watching the Daily Show; you would know it from watching Jack Bauer.
Conservatives enjoy watching victory, whether it be sports or fantasy. Dems relate to failure and flock towards it in both fantasy and reality.
Imagine the joy of failure.
JDW
Wounded skier. Corrections have been causing time-outs so mistakes will be made.
New pro-adoption dems, what about replacing abortions?
Dems relate to failure and f
February 23, 2007 - 22:33 ET by balboaDems relate to failure and flock towards it in both fantasy and reality.
That's a nice, tidy, ridiculous statement.
I don't think 24 makes peop
February 23, 2007 - 12:50 ET by balboaI don't think 24 makes people into torturers. I'm making a comparison between complaints from the right and left about two different shows.
We could take a cue from Davi
February 23, 2007 - 09:45 ET by ucWe could take a cue from David Geffen and ask Ms. Brooks about his likening seeing James Carville on TV to maybe torture. Hollywood may already be on a course change: maybe it is now passe to cast or cue scenes that present the Hillary look as other than maybe tired and "done that - been there?"
I wonder if Hollywood is already onto the possibility that the 22 Amendment does apply to any spouse that any President has gotten elected with to "work from home with" as "the first united couple"? If such does get cast as against the law will arrests come on election day and include every voter that casts a vote for Hillary? What would be the charge against voters, what would be the charge against the candidate?
Hollywood you can send me a message through this site by clicking on my handle "uc" and selecting "send a private message" if you want to develop this idea and thus need to know where to send the contract.
Begin holding breath.....NOW!
February 23, 2007 - 09:48 ET by CarpareusBegin holding breath.....NOW!
torture
February 23, 2007 - 09:52 ET by seejayMy guess is that Dave High is a shill for the purpose of generating comment.
But I'll still respond.
I love the adjustable standards that constitute "proof" according to libs. Dave says it's "proven" that torture gains unreliable results, hoping that no one will ask to see his "proof!" You must never allow a lib to make blanket statements like that. By not challenging this nonsense, we give Dave the feeling that he is right. And he'll continue to make vague generalities instead of valid argument as long as he's allowed.
He is living in the "Oprahland World." As are MANY other diluted Americans today, thanks to rotten public education, and to the media that stands against most things American!
In "Oprahland," facts and data are BORING! The real money is in emotional consensus! The one that can blurt out his or her point clearly enough so that the studio audience can applaud the longest is the one that's "Correct." Those whom generate little applause have clearly missed the point and are therfore wrong.
Dave seems to suggest that if HE were in charge, and the exact scenario that appears on "24" happened here for real, he'd make sure no one got tortured!
And, after the next attack. we'd all watch him hang on pay per view!
And one more thing. Real Americans have NEVER concerned themselves with how the rest of the world sees them. That's why the rest of the world is trying to come here! America still is the exception among nations. It still is the envy of the world. No matter how many girls try to make us care what lesser nations seem to feel, at the time, about us, we can be secure in the knowledge that our position in the world is maintained through our achievement as a nation. Not through opinion polls conducted by CNN International!
To those who claim that tor
February 23, 2007 - 10:02 ET by DyneTo those who claim that torture doesn't work, should you ever get the chance to tour England's Tower of London, be sure to ask about the Scavenger's Daughter (the reverse of the Rack), that was able to break the toughest captive in less than a minute.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
I've always been taught tha
February 23, 2007 - 09:59 ET by DyneI've always been taught that if you can't differentiate between fantasy and reality (especially when the media and TV shows use extremely shocking ideas in order to boost their ratings) then you shouldn't be watching the show until you can.
According to my Sociology professor, a human child is unable to differentiate fantasy and reality until the age of 10. And a good many of them will be able to say, "It's not real." Does that mean their brains are more developed than these anti-"24" idiots?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
Dyne....were talking LA here.
February 23, 2007 - 10:08 ET by bassndudeDyne....were talking LA here. Of course they cant differentiate. They live in fantasy land.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Anyone tried to read this d
February 23, 2007 - 11:20 ET by Jack BauerAnyone tried to read this dope Rosa Brooks.
Now THAT'S torture.
Here's another oddball lib***l who can't keep her "opinions" remotely consistent..
Don't lib***ls always lecture the rest of us that TV and movies are just fiction. And they have NO effect on the behavior or actions of those who watch?
So, for instance, they can laud a movie in which a 12 year old pre-pubescent girl (as portrayed by Dakota Fanning, a very tatented actress, by the way) is violently raped on screen...
Because, hey, that has no effect on weirdos out there. Nah, no supressed pedos are going to be turned on by that.
But a quasi-cartoonish portrayal of "torture" cannot be allowed to stand.
Why Dave High and all liberals are headed for extinction.
February 23, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Dave RDave High,
I hate to tell you, pal, but you and your kind are headed the way of the dodo bird. Let's face it, most liberals today are, quite frankly, stupid enough to throw themselves from a cliff and die before they would do anything to defend themselves or anyone else, much less do anything that might offend a bunch of 7th Century barbarians whose stated goal is to impose Islamic law on the whole world.
A theory being put forth by some, one which seems quite plausible to me, is that liberals are, to one degree or another, afflicted with a chemical imbalance that prevents them from being able to prioritize things into their proper order of importance. It is also seems to explain why tmost of you have become moral relativists to the point of being irresponsible. Whether or not this rises to the level of being a mental disorder is a matter for some debate, but I believe that it is, as I view liberals who support the destruction of Western Society by the aforesaid barbarians to be insane.
See below, as I believe it is a dead-on insight into the modern liberal mentality:
Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the
corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have
mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
Democrat's Answer (this would be you, Dave High):
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man
look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would
inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What
about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the
knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the
Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun
anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my
children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound
me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and
weed day and make this a happier and healthier street that would discourage
such behavior. This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a
consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern (or Texas) Republican's Answer (this would be my answer, Dave):
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.....
(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or
Hollow Points?
Son: Git-r-Dun Pop! Can I shoot the next one!
Wife: You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You see, Dave, I would survive the above scenario and go on taking care of my family. You, however, well, let's just say the coroner's report would be that you were dead before your behind hit the sidewalk.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Dave R...Glock cal. 40 has 10
February 23, 2007 - 11:28 ET by vrwc13Dave R...Glock cal. 40 has 10 rounds not nine...other than that...great post!
face piles of trials with smileS
vrwc13,Actually, I didn't aut
February 23, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Dave Rvrwc13,
Actually, I didn't author that, my brother sent it along in an email. I think it perfectly illustrates the mentality of the modern lib today. As I see it, we are in a race to see if the libs will destroy themselves, or at least be so few as to no-longer matter before they effect a surrender to the Islamic horde currently working to impose their will on the whole planet.
From where I am sitting, it is going to be a close call.
As for the number of rounds in a .40 Glock, that one got by me. I used to have a 21, but it held 13 rounds of .45 acp. :-)
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Dave R...the problem with the
February 23, 2007 - 11:49 ET by vrwc13Dave R...the problem with the libs destroying themselves is they will inevitably take a number of us down with them.
got a Glock .40...it has 10 rounds, groups nicely too.
face piles of trials with smiles
I'd go with the Springfield A
February 23, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI'd go with the Springfield Armory XD .45 ACP Tactical 13+1.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean Gene,Anything, as long
February 23, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Dave RMean Gene,
Anything, as long as it isn't one of those pathetically weak 9mm pop guns. :-)
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Dave High spouts the classic lib***l lie
February 23, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Jack BauerDave High spouts the classic lib***l lie...
despite the fact that (torture) has proven to be a highly unreliable means of getting accurate information
Not true. That's way, way too simplistic. And rather a rather black and white way of looking at things.
Isn't it nice to be a lib***l? They're always the smartest person in a two foot square closet.
The Chinese INVENTED the most diabolic torture techniques a couple of millenniums ago. Chinese Water Torture, to name but one. They are masters of torture. And they know it works.
Lib***ls are moral cowards.
The reason they pretend torture doesn't work is cover for that moral cowardice.
They want to remove themselves from the moral dilemma of having to choose, for example, whether it is justifiable to torture a single individual to elicit information that could save the lives of hundreds of thousands.
Now this is no theoretical whatif scenario. It is more than conceivable that islamo-terrorists are planning to detonate a small nuclear device in a US city. At a minimum they are continuing to probe US defenses in order to up the ante of the 3000 dead on 9/11.
Clearly the US could capture a person who knew who these people are, and what they are planning. To normal citizens those tasked with defending national security would be justified in using any means to find out.
But rather than face that fact, lib***ls try to convince themselves (and us) that torturing a suspect wouldn't work anyway.
So to salve their own conscience, they would rather see thousands die. It's that simple.
Of course, they would also be the first to blame everyone else for NOT STOPPING the attack.
Clearly there are certain individuals who have a greater capacity to withstand pain. Special Forces are trained to hold out. But virtually everyone does actually have a breaking point. That is an undeniable, absolute fact.
If the aim of the torture is to elicit a specific fact -- like the location and names of his fellow terrorists, or a bomb, they will give it up, given the time and effort used to get the info.
As it can be quickly verified, where's the upside to the person being tortured? It simply continues if he lied.
A famous case would be Guy Fawkes, the guy who tried to blow up the English parliament on November 5th, 1605.
He was hideously tortured and gave up all his fellow plotters within a day. And this guy was really motivated, dedicated by what he did, which he saw as being sanctioned by God.
And you can't really believe in Stockholm Syndrome, where normal human beings, apparently, fairly quickly bond with their captors, and compliantly hand over info.
Yet for some odd reason, if you tortured these very same people, it would have the opposite effect and they wouldn't hand over the same info. Come on!
like your post, jack
February 23, 2007 - 11:54 ET by tumbler_2007Just this much I would add:
In preparation for the torture ordeal, every candidate ought to be warned. Very simply I'd look him in the eyes,
"Are you listening --? ? ? Please pay attention; you have a minute or two to think about this. You have only two options; to tell me everything truthfully right now, no arguments, no crying or lies. Only the plain truth IMMEDIATELY, or,
For the entire day you are to undergo an enormous amount of pain and distress; you are to be tortured without mercy. Get ready to talk, or refuse right now. We have to start traumatizing your ugly body in about one MINUTE. --I almost forgot; let me say this clearly:
You will have no food or water over the next three days, and every day the torture will continue until you either talk or die. That's all."
I have to think in at least one out of five cases the intended victim will start to spill his guts right away.
tumb -- thanks. Look I'm no
February 23, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Jack Bauertumb -- thanks. Look I'm not specifically advocating for or against torture in this post.
That really is down to an individual's conscience.
I just want to point out that this lie about torture "not working" is just a lib***l crutch.
If someone is against torture because they find it morally unacceptable, even if it would be one of those "lesser of two evils" scenarios...
Then have the bleepin' courage of your convictions and say so.
Say, you would rather see many die because you are opposed to hurting the individual.
That I can almost respect. Totally, hugely and violently disagree, but at least that person is being truthful.
The sad thing is that a per
February 23, 2007 - 12:07 ET by DyneThe sad thing is that a person could be completely honest about not having any information, but will be tortured anyway. That's the part of it that doesn't work.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
you'd better understand something
February 23, 2007 - 12:36 ET by tumbler_2007Dyne:
You're wrong. Not all prisoners are tortured indiscrimately. It's the prime suspects who know what you need to know who have to be interrogated ruthlessly. There are always facts that point to these people beforehand. Torturing every prisoner is barbarous on the face of it.
Saying it doesn't work flies against the facts. If it didn't work during those appropriate interrogations it wouldn't ever be resorted to. No one would keep doing something that wasn't useful.
Here we have a huge difference from the Bolshevik's style of doing those things in the past, opposed to our own covert operations. The evils of a totalitarian government like Stalin's predisposed it using terror in support of the party; it tortured for the sake of suppressing the citizens. Any other motives were only a tiny part of that practice.
Here we know that a cell is very apt and positively determined to carry out mass murder of unprecedented magnitude --anticipated over the course of mere days if allowed to work undetected. It must be averted. Our motive is only the defense of our homeland. There is no suppression or torture of innocents.
Eugene/Tumbler/Tumbler 2007 -
February 23, 2007 - 12:42 ET by florida_chadEugene/Tumbler/Tumbler 2007 - how come you don't use broken english you used to use? Have you been taking english lesson lately? They seem to be working.
maybe off topic
February 23, 2007 - 14:43 ET by tumbler_2007But just to let you know, Dear Chad;
My English is perfect, and I have no accent.
My spelling is above average; I once represented my school at the city finals spelling bee.
I'm also fluent in oral and written Spanish; can get by on a street in Rome (Italian) and know a little French. None of the above-named do I speak "broken." Ocassionally I add comic flavor saying something like youz guys, da bears, YO Mama, etc. Or I'll speak some Yiddish with a schnorrer such as you. Southern Corn-pone, maybe Chyall. Or You-all. Or a little Brit lingo such as --Nonsense, Sir Chad , Earl of Boca Bottom ! Lol!
FOX vs Movies, ABC, CBS, NBC, HBO, etc.
February 23, 2007 - 11:58 ET by PawpawNIt's just because the show is on FOX. You never hear of the violence, torture, gore, etc., when the show is on ABC, CBS, NBC, HBO or in any movies. Geez, did you see THE DEPARTED, or watch the HBO shows, the SHOWTIME shows, etc. Don't you know that they just want FOX, FOX NEWS & anything that might have any hint of conservatismn banished from the face of the earth. Even THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was tried to be booted off because it was too gory(not AL GOREY!). Movies always display so much blood & gore & violence, but they want PG ratings for them.
Doesn't anyone in the Drive u
February 23, 2007 - 14:06 ET by JayTeeDoesn't anyone in the Drive up Media notice or want to Acknowledge that all the "24" Torture Scenes actually work.....they are productive.....they end up saving the Country ? ?
Huh....? Anyone wanna Acknowledge an effective strategy for self preservation ?
The Alien Enemies Act (official title: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. Enacted July 6, 1798, with no expiration date, i
The only reason 24 is targete
February 23, 2007 - 17:31 ET by CheetoianThe only reason 24 is targeted is because it is a popular show, and due to the lack of actual torture committed by US soldiers, they have to critisize a fictional tv show, in order to bring about the debate. Regardless, torture is an effective means of obtaining information. It is proven to have worked, i watched a show on the history channel in which they subject 10 volunteers to non-physical forms of coercion, ie sleep deprivation, withholding food, forced exercise, warm or cold rooms etc for a period of 24 hrs. By the end of the show, everyone had confess the secrets that they were suppose to withhold.
In regards to the moral aspect of torture, what is more moral? allowing thousands of innocents to die, or ensuring the well-being of one terrorist, at the expense of countless innocents. We are dealing with pure evil, the only way to combat it is with unwavering resolve to do the right thing, even if the means are questionable. The people we are dealing with have unquestioning faith in their mission they wont respect our laws or any moral code, they are animals driven by a fanatical obsession to not only do God's will, but to be God, the only way we can stop them is with a bullet between the eyes.
That being said, I myself am deeply religious and i understand that the vast majority of muslims are not in favor of this ideology, and i feel the most effective way of combating terrorism, short of launching an all out war on every terrorist group, is through the muslim community, through ideological means not military.
I am a Capitalist/laissez-faire/Irish-Catholic/Carnivorious/
Supply-Side/Reaganite/John Wayne-loving/Chauvinistic/American Imperialist/Politically Incorrect/Zionist/Pro-War Conservative, plain and simple. Vindication is only 2 years away.
good post, cheetoian
February 23, 2007 - 17:56 ET by tumbler_2007In almost all aspects you give us here, I agree with you. Except one; a key point:
I do NOT believe any majority worth speaking of in Islam holds an unfavorable view of Jihad or sits by innocently while we're hated by all of them. They are all of one cloth, IMHO.
They aren't all in cahoots. But if any of them ever had to choose sides; it wouldn't be with the west. This is just an unavoidable truth going back to Rudyard Kipling's day.
I believe it was Lawrence of Arabia described this mentality. "My brother and I fight one another. But if my brother fights another, the other is my enemy as well. He is my friend and friend of my brother's against another tribe. That tribe is friends to us when we fight another enemy, a different tribe." Same with their blood feuds. You get to kill whoever kills your brother. Then the family of the one you kill comes and kills you and your family-- ad infinitum. "East is East and West is West; and never the twain shall meet." Rudyard Kipling --
u have a point, but then agai
February 23, 2007 - 18:16 ET by Cheetoianu have a point, but then again i would like to believe that truly faithful and good muslims will realize that these people are not your brothers, but your enemies. We are on the same side as these good muslims, the radical terrorist groups are killing them as well as us, we need for them to help us if we want to solve this peacefully.
I am a Capitalist/laissez-faire/Irish-Catholic/Carnivorious/
Supply-Side/Reaganite/John Wayne-loving/Chauvinistic/American Imperialist/Politically Incorrect/Zionist/Pro-War Conservative, plain and simple. Vindication is only 2 years away.
good muslims
February 23, 2007 - 20:47 ET by m1xram"Good Muslims" are the ones not following the Koran.
Of course in context they sound somewhat worse. (You'll have to scroll down quite a ways on the links.)
Clerics teach that wherever the Koran conflicts use the latter scripture. Of course that leaves us with Mohammad's more violent prophecies.