What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're turning it backwards. The OP isn't talking about policy, it's talking about reacting in a crisis situation. The hypothetical isn't the slightest bit extreme, it could happen at any time - today, tomorrow, next week.

And there is no flawed logic. I notice you're not offering any reasoning to back up your charge, Captain Courageous.

Did torture work on John McCain? Did the Bush Torture Program produce any actionable intel?

The answer to both questions is NO
 
Oh. here we go !!! The classic liberal defense >> STUDIES. Note that they're all from heavily biased liberal publications (The Guardian, New York Times, CNN, LA Times, GAG!)

Here's another example of liberals referring to totally biased ultra-liberal source, calling them "studies", and actually expecting us to accept it. Wow. What an intelligence insult.

EARTH TO DRL: I promise you that if the terrorist was lowered bare feet first into an electric wood chipper, he will do some real fast talking. And if he's wrong he'll be back in that wood chipper again, while told this time, it's be his whole legs. My money is he tells the truth.

And even in worst case scenario. Suppose the (very unlikely) event that he doesn't tell the truth. >> You're willing to gamble the lives of millions of Americans, to preserve the rights of one terrorist ? There's another question for you. YES or NO.
 
What if a terrorist knew of a plot to assassinate trump tomorrow? What would you do?

Go to the beach? or go out for a steak dinner?

And yet u want to claim the moral high ground
 
So you'd just ask him nicely for the location of the bomb?
And here's the thing.
The torture isnt going to stop. And you let him know in no uncertain terms that if he gives bad info what he's just experienced will be like playing paddy cake compared to whats coming.

OP is an age-old hypothetical - It simply wouldn't happen.

The ultimate...What if?

It becomes an excuse for all those who engage in torture to excuse barbarism

I was only torturing to save lives

Same reason our pilots were tortured
 
I ask all posters to this thread to answer the following question with a YES or NO answer. Add more if desired, but please don't omit a yes or no answer.

Suppose a terrorist was captured and being interrogated by the FBI. Suppose he told the agents that a nuclear bomb was scheduled to be detonated in New York City, within 24 hours. With an estimated 2017 population of 8.6 Million, and despite being distributed over a massive land area of about 302.6 square miles, New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States.

If this nuclear bomb, of significant size and power, were exploded, it would kill millions of people, and be the most horrific single event in human history. And suppose the terrorist said he knew who the perpetrator was in charge of this heinous act, his location, the location of the device to be used to detonate the bomb, and how to easily disable it.

Bear in mind that torture is illegal under US law (Title 18 of US Code, Section 2340A)

So here's the question. >> Would/should we allow millions of fellow Americans to be incinerated and radiated by this monstrous event, or would/should we do whatever it takes (including torture) to get this information from this terrorist, if it's apparent that that would stop the bomb ?

YES or NO.
No not today. My answer would be different if it years ago before todays tech. I have had several family members who have been in the intellegence apparatus. According to thier studies tortue is realy good at getting erronious info not so much on good info. Todays FBI interagation rooms are state of the art at finding lies and inconsistancies. There are techniques that can be used with these machines that are very smililar to what you use to see on the mentalist. Things like showing them places on a map and checking his body functions when hey see it, they will have a larger reaction the closer you get to what they are involved in. Only after all this failed would I consider alterantive techniques.

Nothing wrong with that. Torture is a last resort effort
 
I've seen a whole bunch of ex CIA guys who were involved with torture say that they got more information out of a terrorist with a few cigarettes and a favorite meal than they did with torture.
But THEIR "torture" wasn't so severe. Alternatives abound.
 
Oh. here we go !!! The classic liberal defense >> STUDIES. Note that they're all from heavily biased liberal publications (The Guardian, New York Times, CNN, LA Times, GAG!)

Here's another example of liberals referring to totally biased ultra-liberal source, calling them "studies", and actually expecting us to accept it. Wow. What an intelligence insult.

EARTH TO DRL: I promise you that if the terrorist was lowered bare feet first into an electric wood chipper, he will do some real fast talking. And if he's wrong he'll be back in that wood chipper again, while told this time, it's be his whole legs. My money is he tells the truth.

And even in worst case scenario. Suppose the (very unlikely) event that he doesn't tell the truth. >> You're willing to gamble the lives of millions of Americans, to preserve the rights of one terrorist ? There's another question for you. YES or NO.

You are making the very dangerous assumption that this person KNOWS where the bomb is. He may not in which case he is going to make something up. He'll probably make something up even if he DOES know. Threaten him twice with the chipper he is going to make up something else.

Torture doesn't work - and the Intel Committee Report proves it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top