Posted on 12/19/2008 9:28:41 AM PST by steve-b
Your style of writing is so poor that you have to surround your thoughts with a bold box due to either insecurity or arrogance.
Either way, Merry Christmas to you, too!
“What do you do?”
Geez. Read the article. A similar scenario is described by the guy — not a nuke, but an IED.
Well, if you're going to add magical constratints, what if the guy is magically immune to pain, or magically intangible so that your billy club just goes through him like so much air?
You’re good! Merry Christmas.
“Well, if you’re going to add magical constratints...”
Not magical, practical. Imagine trying to evacuate any part of a big city on short notice. I was in a US Gov’t facility on 9-11. We were told to evacuate the area. It took an hour for us to even get the word to leave, then another hour to get out of the parking lot.
And I note another non-answer.
This is a classic example of the ad hoc fallacy (arbitrarily introducing elements to cover problems in one's position). The fallacy is best illustrated by the old sailors' joke:
Officer: You see a storm approaching from the north. What do you do?Where you're getting your "storms" is the obvious inconsistency between having magic 100% reliable information (you claim as a postulated fact that a specific individual knows where the bomb is) and not having any information at all (you have absolutely no idea where the dirty bomb is, so you don't know where to start sweeping with the Geiger counters -- or maybe all the Geiger counters have magically malfunctioned as part of the support for your scenario).
Middie: Throw out an anchor, sir.
Officer: You see another storm approaching from the sorth. What do you do?
Middie: Throw out another anchor, sir.
Officer: You see another storm approaching from the west. What do you do?
Middie: Throw out another anchor, sir.
Officer: And where are you getting all these anchors, midshipman?
Middie: Same place you're getting all your storms, sir.
“Geez. Read the article. A similar scenario is described by the guy — not a nuke, but an IED.”
I don’t see anything in that article about stopping an IED, or any other immediate return on his “morally superior” methods.
I see him bragging about turning a guy in six hours after other interrogators had already worked on him for three weeks.
Six hours is still five too many when the bomb goes off in one.
And I still have no answer to my question.
Of course, you do everything within your power to find the bomb.
You also have a guy in custody who knows where it is.
It’s your family that’s in danger. You have to live with the consequences of what you do or do not do in the next hour.
Good luck with that.
Let's try this again, after you re-read where I explained your fallacy.
I heard him say this on Laura Ingraham yesterday. My first thought was, "what abuses at Guantanamo?" I know this a bug-a-boo of the left, but I have not heard of specific "abuses" against prisoners except the false "flush the Koran" story. Obviously, Abu Ghraib is a problem but it was an isolated circumstance and not an exercise of a policy.
“Let’s try this again, after you re-read where I explained your fallacy.”
You caught the guy at the place where the bomb was constructed. He’s got residue on him, plans, tools, etc.
You have whatever evidence you need that this guy knows where the bomb is. He is the best chance you have to find the bomb in the next hour to save your family.
What do you do?
I lost my keys the other day. So, I need to find the guy at the hardware store who cut them and slap him around until he coughs up the intel....
When you're in the bottom of a hole, stop digging.
Part of the beauty of the internet is that you can engage a total stranger, in conversation, to whatever end. You have no idea who I am, nor my range of qualifications. I’m, virtually, certain that you have no experience in this field at all. No matter! You’re exercising your brain-cells and that’s a good thing!
“When you’re in the bottom of a hole, stop digging.”
Machts nicht. The hour’s up, the bomb went off. Your Darwin Award is in the mail.
Thank you for your participation.
“I don’t see anything in that article about stopping an IED, or any other immediate return on his “morally superior” methods.”
It was just the opposite. That was my point.
Oh.
We gotta come up with a “/” tag for that.
“You have no idea who I am, nor my range of qualifications.”
As I said, I bet you have no experience in this field, and your answer seems to confirm that.
“I’m, virtually, certain that you have no experience in this field at all”
100% correct. I have no qualifications in this field whatsoever.
That’s why I believe the words of one expert (the Lt. Colonel who wrote the book, for example) are more useful than any of our opinions. Someone who says, “it won’t work!” but who has never done it sounds pretty ridiculous.
They have had other experts on Fox News discussing the interrogation issue, and most (not all) agreed that the harsher methods are less productive IN THE LONG RUN. There are exceptions to every rule, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.