• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Entropy

NP Friday May 05 2017

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Let me be clear here, the usage I was talking about was the short term "stop the person from eating the wall, beds, and chairs" thing, not a long term "treatment" plan.

Ah, but see, that is the brilliance of mental institutions here in Denmark! Short term, long term, it is all the same to them -- once a person has been decided to be a risk, strapped to the gurney they go, and off into the paradise of drugs that make all those worrying things like thought and imagination and life go away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

partially agree. But entertainment can and often does spread misinformation unintentionally. It usually does so by reinforcing existing stereotypes and occasionally so through a complete lack of understanding of complex subjects. More, entertainment may also be used for the active dissemination of propaganda. As an example, the Nazis would use it quite cleverly. Many German artists and film makers in the thirties did not like to portray Nazi ideology. Instead of persecuting them for their reluctance they were encouraged to make romantic movies or tales from happier times. Thus they could tell themselves that they were not actually supporting Nazism, but they were in this way sending the message that things weren't really so bad and that the world was going on as normally. And of course this was exactly what the Nazis wanted them to do.

It may also be done more directly. As a more modern example, the execrable series 24 has done much to normalise torture in the public mind. The 'heroic' protagonist, in order to prevent some dire disaster like a nuclear device about to detonate, is 'forced' to employ torture in order to extract needed information from the villains.

True ; usually, it only spreads existing misinformation instead of creating it, but the effect is very similar.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Firstly, real world intelligence does not run like a bad Hollywood script. While time is important and often critical, it is rare indeed that any agent is faced with a ticking 24-hour clock and knows exactly when it is too late. Next and just as important, torture does not work as it does in Hollywood scripts, either. In fact, quite apart from being ethically and morally bankrupt, its primary issue is that it does not work at all. Torture victims tell their torturers what they think they want to hear, not the truth. Worse yet, while it is indeed true that anyone will eventually break under torture, a determined enemy can thwart their torturers by initially 'confessing' to clouds of misinformation. When they finally break, even if they do tell the truth at the time -- as said, even someone broken will not necessarily say the truth but only what they think the torturers want to hear -- it will be buried in everything else the victim has said till then. And if the torture continues, well, the truth didn't work, the victim will then try something else again to make the pain stop.

Professional interrogators, on the other hand, can get enormous amounts of information and cooperation out of their subjects. Very often without the subject even realising how much it is giving away. They also scorn torture as counterproductive.

Note that torture was simplified in fiction long before "24". I think that experienced torturers can get useful informations, but it's definitely not as simple ... or as quick ... and generally not worth it. Also, yes, torture is totally useless for "confessing": you can get useful information from torture only if it's something torturer don't know. Questions like "did you do it" are useless ; "where did you hide the bodies/the bomb" may work, but has the unfortunate problem that you will never be sure if the tortured is just that good at resisting torture or really don't know ; you would need to be verifying multiple claims, because the tortured will CERTAINLY try to say something which is not true, and it can be both BEFORE and AFTER the true information.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

More positively, entertainment may also be used to educate or provoke thought, and while it is all but impossible to do so in a truly apolitical way it can at the very least attempt to do so in a detached or bipartisan manner that does not sermonise or harp on a message.

Certainly. Unfortunately, this kind of entertainment is rare. In fact, I would argue that it can educate in apolitical way, but some people tend to disagree because their personal prejudices are not compatible with scientific view of world and often education in general.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

For example, I recently saw a children's cartoon that sent a quiet message about the importance of gun safety. Note: not gun control, gun safety. I personally live in a country where firearms are carefully controlled and am quite happy with that state of affairs. Nonetheless, from my time in the Army and the Home Guard I am also a firm believer in being careful with the durn things. I have on the internet at times exchanged opinions with NRA members or even ordinary people who very strongly believe in the right to bear arms.

Gun control SHOULD be about gun safety. I remember some quote (or was it joke?) about parent teaching gun control every week at firing range. Also, I didn't heard convincing counterargument against "If it would be against the law to have gun, then only outlaws will have guns" yet. I, too, live in country where carrying gun is not popular, and I wouldn't want it changed too quickly, but I don't believe it's good in long run.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Disagree as we might on that, I have yet to meet any owner of a firearm that did not fully agree with me on the absolute necessity of being careful with an instrument that, when all is said and done, is intended to kill your fellow beings.

Kill or harm. But usually, it's simpler to do the one you DONT want to do, so ...

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

If that cartoon managed to make at least some children stop and think about the fact that guns aren't actually toys it may have saved lives. And that is no bad thing.

It's definitely better than what most cartoons do - avoiding the guns to the point of stupidity. Heroes and villains are allowed to fight by any means and with any amount of collateral damage but neither is allowed to draw gun.

7 hours ago, mlooney said:

"stop the person from eating the wall, beds, and chairs"

Hey, maybe they had calcium deficiency and eating the wall is GOOD for them! :)

Note that I wasn't objecting about chemically sedating them in general, but against using drug with specific sideefect. They should be using something with CLEAR effect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Firstly, real world intelligence does not run like a bad Hollywood script. While time is important and often critical, it is rare indeed that any agent is faced with a ticking 24-hour clock and knows exactly when it is too late. Next and just as important, torture does not work as it does in Hollywood scripts, either. In fact, quite apart from being ethically and morally bankrupt, its primary issue is that it does not work at all. Torture victims tell their torturers what they think they want to hear, not the truth. Worse yet, while it is indeed true that anyone will eventually break under torture, a determined enemy can thwart their torturers by initially 'confessing' to clouds of misinformation. When they finally break, even if they do tell the truth at the time -- as said, even someone broken will not necessarily say the truth but only what they think the torturers want to hear -- it will be buried in everything else the victim has said till then. And if the torture continues, well, the truth didn't work, the victim will then try something else again to make the pain stop.

World history sadly does not bear out the assertion that torture doesn't work.  It does.

Torture does not work as a blind fishing expedition, however.  The torturer must have (or at least be able to fake having) some accurate information against which the victim's bluffs can measured, recognized and discredited.  Finding the fissures and cracks in the victim's resistances and in the story the victim tells is how the torture game is played.

Interrogation is a more social process, but it takes longer.  Intel is most useful when it is received quickly.  No doubt throwing a torture victim into the lap of an interrogator would make the process much harder because the interrogator would then have to start from a deficit than from 0 to work his or her craft successfully, drawing the intel-gathering process out even longer.

One interesting interrogation technique I heard of was used against german generals during world war 2.  They were treated well, I'm sure interrogated in the normal ways, but they were given good food and accommodations fitting their station.  All were assigned valets to tend to them.  The valets all spoke german but were trained to act as if they didn't.  When the officers socialized with each other they felt completely free to discuss the war.  They interrogated each other.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, hkmaly said:
8 hours ago, mlooney said:

"stop the person from eating the wall, beds, and chairs"

Hey, maybe they had calcium deficiency and eating the wall is GOOD for them! :)

Note that I wasn't objecting about chemically sedating them in general, but against using drug with specific sideefect. They should be using something with CLEAR effect.

 

I've been told that it's cheap and works real fast as an intramuscular injection.  i.e. someone grabs the raging biker, then someone else stabs the hypo in, thus stopping the rampage.  Just one step up from an Animal Planet style dart gun.

I do not volunteer to be either the grabbing person or the biker.  I might think about being the guy with the dart gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mlooney said:

I do not volunteer to be either the grabbing person or the biker.  I might think about being the guy with the dart gun. 

I would consider the dart gun guy position if there is telescopic and/or laser sight on it.

Note that there is example in EGS how you are SUPPOSED to do it. No memory loss, only light confusion. Sadly, medical professional are unlikely to obtain this ... especially the ones in our world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

World history sadly does not bear out the assertion that torture doesn't work.  It does.

Torture does not work as a blind fishing expedition, however.  The torturer must have (or at least be able to fake having) some accurate information against which the victim's bluffs can measured, recognized and discredited.  Finding the fissures and cracks in the victim's resistances and in the story the victim tells is how the torture game is played.

Interrogation is a more social process, but it takes longer.  Intel is most useful when it is received quickly.  No doubt throwing a torture victim into the lap of an interrogator would make the process much harder because the interrogator would then have to start from a deficit than from 0 to work his or her craft successfully, drawing the intel-gathering process out even longer.

One interesting interrogation technique I heard of was used against german generals during world war 2.  They were treated well, I'm sure interrogated in the normal ways, but they were given good food and accommodations fitting their station.  All were assigned valets to tend to them.  The valets all spoke german but were trained to act as if they didn't.  When the officers socialized with each other they felt completely free to discuss the war.  They interrogated each other.  :)

I do not believe that torture works as an information gathering technique. Once again setting aside the ethics of it (something I only do with the utmost reluctance) it is simply too unreliable. Granting that history shows examples of occasions where it has 'worked', I feel unconvinced that it includes a full sample of the occasions where the 'information' obtained has been incomplete, misleading or even wrong. For example, who cares if the 'fellow conspirators' torture victims have named were actually in the conspiracy or were just desperate attempts to buy time free of pain. Certainly not the Gestapo or the KGB, the terror effect of mass arrests would be the same regardless of the actual guilt/complicity of those arrested.

And given that accurate information exists, that can be used to speed ordinary interrogation, too. And do not underestimate the techniques available to professional interrogators, be they gentle or rougher. As to the time expended, well, the whole point of that POS 24 is to insert an artificial time limit that 'justifies' the torture. For example, I would like to know how many nuclear detonations in our world could have been prevented if torture had been employed rather than ordinary interrogation. I did read an article written by a professional interrogator in the US Army who mentioned the 'deficit' you hinted at above. He had been working with a youth who had given him some decent info, but then the youth was sent to 'special interrogation.' When he returned from it and the interrogator resumed work, he had clammed up. Totally. He no longer cooperated in any way or form. The interrogator could not prove anything but was morally certain that his subject had undergone torture in the 'special interrogation' unit.

As for the brilliant interrogation technique you mentioned above, many forms of it still exist and are used frequently. For example, family members sympathetic to the cause of the interrogators are sent to visit the subjects where they are held. Authority figures respected by the subjects work very well, too, particularly priests of their faith. Much depends on the subjects themselves. Conscripts are wonderful subjects. Often they will resent having been forced to fight and a little kindness and promise of safety and preferential treatment will have them chattering endlessly in no time.

Lastly and important to me is the fact that as soon as one employs torture one has immediately and completely ceded the moral high ground. There are many beliefs and ways of living in this world I am utterly inimical to. I do not wish to resist them by becoming them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

 

Quote

Disagree as we might on that, I have yet to meet any owner of a firearm that did not fully agree with me on the absolute necessity of being careful with an instrument that, when all is said and done, is intended to kill your fellow beings.

Kill or harm. But usually, it's simpler to do the one you DONT want to do, so ...

Shoot to stop the threat.

As a civilian or police officer, if another person isn't posing a threat sufficient to justify administering a potentially-fatal wound to stop the threat, you aren't justified in shooting the guy at all. And you're far more likely to stop that threat by attempting to shoot the center of the body than by attempting to hit an arm or leg. If you aren't a marksman with lots of recent training, some combat-like experience, and a weapon you're extremely familiar with, you definitely shouldn't try to shoot a weapon out of a person's hand.

Also, you need to be cognizant of what's behind your target. Because there's a good chance at least one bullet will miss, and some chance that a bullet will go through - then whatever's behind your guy gets hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

Shoot to stop the threat.

As a civilian or police officer, if another person isn't posing a threat sufficient to justify administering a potentially-fatal wound to stop the threat, you aren't justified in shooting the guy at all. And you're far more likely to stop that threat by attempting to shoot the center of the body than by attempting to hit an arm or leg. If you aren't a marksman with lots of recent training, some combat-like experience, and a weapon you're extremely familiar with, you definitely shouldn't try to shoot a weapon out of a person's hand.

Also, you need to be cognizant of what's behind your target. Because there's a good chance at least one bullet will miss, and some chance that a bullet will go through - then whatever's behind your guy gets hit.

All of the above serving to emphasize how utterly vital gun safety is. Once one has accepted that a firearm is to be used only in extremis, there is no longer any excuse for ever setting a gun down without also either 1) locking it away or 2) rendering it inoperable, and ideally both. When I was in the Army, this was what we did. It is not enough merely to leave the safety on. The safety is not protection from misfires, it is merely another barrier against them and one which may be bypassed through either mechanical failure or the manipulations of the careless. I have heard of cases where someone set a gun down for five seconds and in that interval a child that supposedly was downstairs picked it up, aimed it at an aunt and went, "Bang!" Then the child pulled the trigger and tragedy ensued.

Given the level of care Don Edwards rightly insists on when the gun is in its proper owner's hands and the owner is mentally prepared for its use -- and how dangerous it is even then -- it becomes a no-brainer to work out how dangerous the situation instantly becomes should someone careless or untrained be allowed near the weapon. Once again, I am in no way arguing for gun control with this. I am, however, stressing the absolute need for discipline and caution when one actually possesses such a weapon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also why certain forms of gun-safety training should begin at a very early age. Toddlers still in diapers can start on the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" gun-safety training, which can be summarized in four words: No. Stop. Go. Tell. (My understanding is that "Stop" is a relatively recent addition to the program.)

No - don't touch the gun.

Stop - don't let your friends touch it either.

Go - leave the area so the gun won't tempt you (and you're safe if, despite your best efforts, some other kid starts playing with it).

Tell - tell a responsible adult who can take appropriate action.

And yet people flip out at the thought of turning kids into gun-nuts by letting the NRA indoctrinate them with such horrible pro-murder propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

And yet people flip out at the thought of turning kids into gun-nuts by letting the NRA indoctrinate them with such horrible pro-murder propaganda.

There are many reasons reasonable people oppose the NRA. The fact that the NRA may provide useful gun safety training does not make its other actions and stances acceptable. I respectfully request that you not add unneeded emotion to this discussion by attacks on strawman stereotypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I do not believe that torture works as an information gathering technique. Once again setting aside the ethics of it (something I only do with the utmost reluctance) it is simply too unreliable. Granting that history shows examples of occasions where it has 'worked', I feel unconvinced that it includes a full sample of the occasions where the 'information' obtained has been incomplete, misleading or even wrong. For example, who cares if the 'fellow conspirators' torture victims have named were actually in the conspiracy or were just desperate attempts to buy time free of pain. Certainly not the Gestapo or the KGB, the terror effect of mass arrests would be the same regardless of the actual guilt/complicity of those arrested.

Once again the prevalence of torture in history and across the planet says it is effective.  Much must no doubt depend on the precise meaning of "information gathering".

In the special case of naming co-conspirators, most authoritarian governments tend to view people as an expansible resource.  A net cast too wide which catches the innocent along with the guilty merely enhances the intelligence agency's ability to intimidate.  Just as pirates depend on fear to intimidate a ship into handing over valuables without a fight, so also intelligence agencies use fear to get at information without having to resort to torture.  The Gestapo especially and probably the KGB as well prize efficiency.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

And given that accurate information exists, that can be used to speed ordinary interrogation, too. And do not underestimate the techniques available to professional interrogators, be they gentle or rougher. As to the time expended, well, the whole point of that POS 24 is to insert an artificial time limit that 'justifies' the torture. For example, I would like to know how many nuclear detonations in our world could have been prevented if torture had been employed rather than ordinary interrogation. I did read an article written by a professional interrogator in the US Army who mentioned the 'deficit' you hinted at above. He had been working with a youth who had given him some decent info, but then the youth was sent to 'special interrogation.' When he returned from it and the interrogator resumed work, he had clammed up. Totally. He no longer cooperated in any way or form. The interrogator could not prove anything but was morally certain that his subject had undergone torture in the 'special interrogation' unit.

At what point does interrogation become "torture" then?  How "rough" can one be and still just be an interrogator?  I'm not sure there's an agreed-upon dividing line. 

When someone is taken to a "special interrogation" unit, I would expect that extreme methods are likely to be used.  Would the interrogator you mention be able to pick up the pieces after an interrogation that was significantly rougher than her or his own?  My guess is no.  The likely scenario would be that the youth you mention said something to his regular interrogator that was deemed important enough to get at immediately.  The youth would make the obvious connection between cooperating with his regular interrogator and being hauled away to rougher treatment and shut down regardless of whether he was actually tortured.  That said, interrogators have to be good at reading people so there may be physical or emotional signs that the interrogator associated with torture specifically.   Anything harsher than the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition torturers using comfy chairs and soft pillows would destroy the trust a day-to-day interrogator would need to be effective.

Any fast-changing situation requires intel in a hurry.  The more at stake, the greater the pressure for immediate results.  I regard the "preventing a nuclear detonation" scenario as a thought experiment which takes the situation to an extreme.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Lastly and important to me is the fact that as soon as one employs torture one has immediately and completely ceded the moral high ground. There are many beliefs and ways of living in this world I am utterly inimical to. I do not wish to resist them by becoming them.

The real world is messy.  The question would come down to how many of your own people, sometimes even friends and family, would you let be killed or harmed to maintain your ideals.  The nuclear bomb scenario simply asks if you're willing to allow it to happen to millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mlooney said:

I've been told that it's cheap and works real fast as an intramuscular injection.  i.e. someone grabs the raging biker, then someone else stabs the hypo in, thus stopping the rampage.  Just one step up from an Animal Planet style dart gun.

I do not volunteer to be either the grabbing person or the biker.  I might think about being the guy with the dart gun. 

I've been that guy with the dart gun!  Intramuscular injections generally take a bit of time to take effect; only intravenous can knock someone/some critter out within seconds.  Well, safely, anyway...there are plenty of things that can kill you within a frighteningly short time.

Dr. David Taylor wrote a series of books about his career as a zoo veterinarian.  In one of them, he talks of setting up to use a blow pipe to dart some sort of hoofstock, I forget what exactly.  The drug he was using was quite safe for the ungulate in question, but dangerous for primates, so he always had someone with him and the antidote drawn up and ready to give before even opening the bottle of the tranquilizer.  In this case, he drew up the dart and slid it into the blow gun safely, then brought it to his lips to blow -- and felt a small damp spot touch his lips.  A tiny drop of the drug had clung to the tip of the needle, and in inserting it into the blow pipe, that tiny drop had transferred to the edge of the mouthpiece.  He could feel it starting to take effect immediately, and the person he'd brought with him didn't figure out what was happening, so Dr. Taylor grabbed up the syringe of antidote and just barely had time to jam it into his own leg through his trousers and depress the plunger before he was completely paralyzed, including his breathing, waiting for the antidote to kick in.  I believe that was the closest call he had in his whole career.  One tiny drop that absorbed right through his skin.

17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I would consider the dart gun guy position if there is telescopic and/or laser sight on it.

Note that there is example in EGS how you are SUPPOSED to do it. No memory loss, only light confusion. Sadly, medical professional are unlikely to obtain this ... especially the ones in our world.

Sadly, there's nothing that can work that perfectly, guaranteed, every time for everyone.  There's just too much individual variation in lean body mass, circulating blood volume and protein levels, sensitivity to each drug, and sensitivity to each side effect of each drug.

As for memory loss, I've heard recommendations to use midazolam as a sedative for parrots specifically because it can cause memory loss surrounding the office visit.  Birds are smart enough to figure out, after a trip to a strange and scary place where things happened to them they did not understand, the next time they're brought there, the same sort of things might happen, and they get all the more upset because of those bad memories.  Make them forget the scary visit, and they arrive calm and curious for the next visit.  Most office visits are calm, fun interactions with the vet, especially if their owner has done some basic towel training and handling ahead if time.  One bad visit where blood has to be drawn or an x-ray taken could turn those happy visits into a battle forevermore, each struggle making the problem worse, if no sedative is used.  I can see that sort of proactive use applying for small children, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

At what point does interrogation become "torture" then?  How "rough" can one be and still just be an interrogator?  I'm not sure there's an agreed-upon dividing line.

Actually there are such lines. They are called the Convention of Geneva and the United Nations Convention against Torture. They are hardly perfect but in an imperfect world one has to start somewhere.

16 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

When someone is taken to a "special interrogation" unit, I would expect that extreme methods are likely to be used.  Would the interrogator you mention be able to pick up the pieces after an interrogation that was significantly rougher than her or his own?  My guess is no.  The likely scenario would be that the youth you mention said something to his regular interrogator that was deemed important enough to get at immediately.  The youth would make the obvious connection between cooperating with his regular interrogator and being hauled away to rougher treatment and shut down regardless of whether he was actually tortured.  That said, interrogators have to be good at reading people so there may be physical or emotional signs that the interrogator associated with torture specifically.   Anything harsher than the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition torturers using comfy chairs and soft pillows would destroy the trust a day-to-day interrogator would need to be effective.

Precisely. In this specific case -- the one I mentioned in my earlier post -- the interrogator himself was never informed precisely why his subject was remanded to the 'special interrogation' unit. As ever, jurisdiction lines and interagency rivalry may serve to muddy the waters to the point where it is impossible to say which impulse originated from where. The point was, this man was and is a very professional interrogator and he stated his firm belief that morals and ethics aside -- again, a step I take only with extreme reluctance -- torture is counterproductive.

21 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Any fast-changing situation requires intel in a hurry.  The more at stake, the greater the pressure for immediate results.  I regard the "preventing a nuclear detonation" scenario as a thought experiment which takes the situation to an extreme.

Once again I agree but I add this question: is it reasonable to take a thought experiment to such an extreme and then afterwards apply it to the general case? For this is what is done -- one takes an extreme, poses the question as it pertains to that extreme and then applies the answer to the general case. In other words, since one is willing to use torture to prevent a nuclear explosion, surely it is not such a large step to also use it to learn of enemy battle plans, gain the names of possible informants and finally in order to gain the confession of a suspected bicycle thief. Once the first step across the precipice is taken the rest of the way down is easy and inevitable.

26 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

The real world is messy.  The question would come down to how many of your own people, sometimes even friends and family, would you let be killed or harmed to maintain your ideals.  The nuclear bomb scenario simply asks if you're willing to allow it to happen to millions.

But '24' is not the real world. That was my entire point. It is a poorly written Hollywood fantasy which employs the logical fallacy of claiming that because of 'A' one must take step 'B' -- and then have the writers ensure that there is no other way to achieve the desired end. The entire scenario is in no way realistic. In the real real world, as opposed to the imaginary real world of '24', it might run in a far different way.

Let us pretend that some vile individual decides that it is a wonderful idea to detonate a suitcase bomb in the shining metropolis of Chipping Sodbury, South Gloucestershire, England. Step one, of course, is to acquire the device itself. Simplest is to attempt to purchase one on the black market. As soon as our villain sends out feelers he is immediately at risk of touching the spiderwebs of numerous intelligence agencies, but let us for simplicity's sake assume that only British agencies become involved. Already at this stage there is a chance -- I do not know how large a chance, but surely at least a nonzero one, that some British intelligence agent hears that someone is trying to get hold of a nuclear device. If said agent is doing their job, they report this information upward and the intelligence spiderweb trembles ever so slightly, alerting the spider in the middle that a fly is testing the strands.

Let us then say that our villain manages to obtain the device. At this point the spider may or may not have been alerted already. But as soon as an actual device comes into play, the chance of a strand being disturbed increases to some degree. Again it is impossible to say by how much, but again it is surely at least some amount. At this point the effort put into catching our villain also increases sharply.

Step three is smuggling the device into England. I do not think this is as easy as television entertainment would make us believe. Ports, airports, the Channel Tunnel -- these all have safety measures. Even if the alarm still has not been raised at this point, there is now a large risk of bothering the spider; here near its home its web is woven more tightly and finely. And if the alarm has been raised, well, the plot is by now already almost certainly doomed. The amount of resources an alerted intelligence agency will pour into locating such a rogue device is not to be underestimated.

Step four, in theory easiest, involves conveying the device to its target and detonating it. A single geiger counter on the way can make the plan come crashing down. We can only wonder how many of these British Intelligence have bothered with emplacing just in case.

24 would have us believe that all these steps can be entirely disregarded and that Jack Bauer is our only hope of stopping the device. I call taurine ordure. Assuming per default that our various intelligence services are all asleep on their feet for the weeks or months it takes to plan the operation, obtain the device/chemicals/biologicals or whatever, and move the weapon into or almost into position... no.

In short, before you can say 'we have a fast changing situation a la 24', you first need to assume that all the other watchers were sleeping on the job for weeks or months AND that the villainous plan after all that time with perfect operational security leaks just enough info to Jack Bauer that he can get on the case but not enough to make anybody else in the intelligence community believe him. Sorry. I can't swallow that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Actually there are such lines. They are called the Convention of Geneva and the United Nations Convention against Torture. They are hardly perfect but in an imperfect world one has to start somewhere.

Precisely. In this specific case -- the one I mentioned in my earlier post -- the interrogator himself was never informed precisely why his subject was remanded to the 'special interrogation' unit. As ever, jurisdiction lines and interagency rivalry may serve to muddy the waters to the point where it is impossible to say which impulse originated from where. The point was, this man was and is a very professional interrogator and he stated his firm belief that morals and ethics aside -- again, a step I take only with extreme reluctance -- torture is counterproductive.

Once again I agree but I add this question: is it reasonable to take a thought experiment to such an extreme and then afterwards apply it to the general case? For this is what is done -- one takes an extreme, poses the question as it pertains to that extreme and then applies the answer to the general case. In other words, since one is willing to use torture to prevent a nuclear explosion, surely it is not such a large step to also use it to learn of enemy battle plans, gain the names of possible informants and finally in order to gain the confession of a suspected bicycle thief. Once the first step across the precipice is taken the rest of the way down is easy and inevitable.

But '24' is not the real world. That was my entire point. It is a poorly written Hollywood fantasy which employs the logical fallacy of claiming that because of 'A' one must take step 'B' -- and then have the writers ensure that there is no other way to achieve the desired end. The entire scenario is in no way realistic. In the real real world, as opposed to the imaginary real world of '24', it might run in a far different way.

Let us pretend that some vile individual decides that it is a wonderful idea to detonate a suitcase bomb in the shining metropolis of Chipping Sodbury, South Gloucestershire, England. Step one, of course, is to acquire the device itself. Simplest is to attempt to purchase one on the black market. As soon as our villain sends out feelers he is immediately at risk of touching the spiderwebs of numerous intelligence agencies, but let us for simplicity's sake assume that only British agencies become involved. Already at this stage there is a chance -- I do not know how large a chance, but surely at least a nonzero one, that some British intelligence agent hears that someone is trying to get hold of a nuclear device. If said agent is doing their job, they report this information upward and the intelligence spiderweb trembles ever so slightly, alerting the spider in the middle that a fly is testing the strands.

Let us then say that our villain manages to obtain the device. At this point the spider may or may not have been alerted already. But as soon as an actual device comes into play, the chance of a strand being disturbed increases to some degree. Again it is impossible to say by how much, but again it is surely at least some amount. At this point the effort put into catching our villain also increases sharply.

Step three is smuggling the device into England. I do not think this is as easy as television entertainment would make us believe. Ports, airports, the Channel Tunnel -- these all have safety measures. Even if the alarm still has not been raised at this point, there is now a large risk of bothering the spider; here near its home its web is woven more tightly and finely. And if the alarm has been raised, well, the plot is by now already almost certainly doomed. The amount of resources an alerted intelligence agency will pour into locating such a rogue device is not to be underestimated.

Step four, in theory easiest, involves conveying the device to its target and detonating it. A single geiger counter on the way can make the plan come crashing down. We can only wonder how many of these British Intelligence have bothered with emplacing just in case.

24 would have us believe that all these steps can be entirely disregarded and that Jack Bauer is our only hope of stopping the device. I call taurine ordure. Assuming per default that our various intelligence services are all asleep on their feet for the weeks or months it takes to plan the operation, obtain the device/chemicals/biologicals or whatever, and move the weapon into or almost into position... no.

In short, before you can say 'we have a fast changing situation a la 24', you first need to assume that all the other watchers were sleeping on the job for weeks or months AND that the villainous plan after all that time with perfect operational security leaks just enough info to Jack Bauer that he can get on the case but not enough to make anybody else in the intelligence community believe him. Sorry. I can't swallow that one.

I can't defend 24 beyond reminding you that it is a TV show scripted to attract and hold interest, nor for accuracy to the real world.  Having GMed my fair share of games I can also propose ways a villain can plausibly get around all your objections.

Which brings us to the general case of the "ticking time-bomb" scenario: Something important is at stake and a Bad Thing is going to happen after a short amount of time such that normal methods are too slow to be effective.  What extremity of measures are we willing to take and what morals are we willing to compromise to stop the Bad Thing from happening?  One mark of evil people in movies or TV is that they are casually willing to engage in extreme measures in the service of petty goals.

Would you torture a bad guy to save a city, is as I've said extreme.   A kidnapper has taken a child and demanded money saying that the child has been buried in a remote location with X hours of air.  He will only reveal the location after he is paid Y amount of money and given safe passage out of the country.  He is captured before his deadline.   Do you torture him for the location of the child?  People have attempted kidnap scenarios like this in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I can't defend 24 beyond reminding you that it is a TV show scripted to attract and hold interest, nor for accuracy to the real world.  Having GMed my fair share of games I can also propose ways a villain can plausibly get around all your objections.

But that is precisely my point. 24 was political propaganda used to assist in normalising torture for the population. Ethics and morals never entered the question; the unthinking TV viewer just had the notion introduced that, "Uh... maybe torture is a really good idea." If even one in ten of these spent as little time digging into the involved issues as I have done, let alone took the equivalent of a freshman college class course on the matter, I will eat my keyboard, monitor AND computer. Without salt.

As to your proposals for your fantasy game, I defy you to find a way that will let a villain automatically beat all the ordinary non-torture security measures we have in place in the real -- repeat, real -- world.

12 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Which brings us to the general case of the "ticking time-bomb" scenario: Something important is at stake and a Bad Thing is going to happen after a short amount of time such that normal methods are too slow to be effective.  What extremity of measures are we willing to take and what morals are we willing to compromise to stop the Bad Thing from happening?  One mark of evil people in movies or TV is that they are casually willing to engage in extreme measures in the service of petty goals.

Yes. And how realistic is that? I do not consider the villains of, say, True Lies to be very realistic. Instead, let us look at a real life example. The World Trade Center. It features brutal and murderous suicide warriors brainwashed into thinking of their victims as subhuman and carefully trained to carry out one real-life attack. In that scenario, the ticking time bomb scenario falls completely apart. The main plotter was already on the radar and had been so for years. Various intelligence agencies, US and others, had kept a careful eye on the organisation. The agencies had months of warning that something was in the wind. Ultimately, what allowed the attack to achieve its 50% success was poor communication between various agencies and finally the administration. (Please note that I am not blaming the GWB administration here. It was a different time then and previous to 9/11 such an attack was unimaginable in not only the public mind but also in the minds of many who should have known better. Had Gore won the election, he might have been caught off guard, too.)

Try to insert an organisation of torturers in the scenario above and explain to me how it could have achieved what the ordinary intelligence agencies had failed to accomplish with conventional methods, giving them the same months of time to operate in. Then explain why the poor communication problem would not have applied to them.

In order to justify the ticking clock scenario for the WTC attack, you once again need to presume that the ordinary intelligence agencies would have completely failed to gain even an inkling of the attack up till 24 hours before the attack happened. Which was not what actually happened.

24 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Would you torture a bad guy to save a city, is as I've said extreme.   A kidnapper has taken a child and demanded money saying that the child has been buried in a remote location with X hours of air.  He will only reveal the location after he is paid Y amount of money and given safe passage out of the country.  He is captured before his deadline.   Do you torture him for the location of the child?  People have attempted kidnap scenarios like this in the real world.

Yes. In how many of these have torture managed to save the child's life where conventional interrogation provably could not? Please link me to respectable real world sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

But that is precisely my point. 24 was political propaganda used to assist in normalising torture for the population. Ethics and morals never entered the question; the unthinking TV viewer just had the notion introduced that, "Uh... maybe torture is a really good idea." If even one in ten of these spent as little time digging into the involved issues as I have done, let alone took the equivalent of a freshman college class course on the matter, I will eat my keyboard, monitor AND computer. Without salt.

I'd say your hardware is safe for reasons already discussed (24 as inaccurate entertainment)

If you are alleging 24 was de facto propaganda in favor of torture, I'm good with that.  I can agree or disagree by my own interpretation of the show and, as previously stated, I haven't seen it so I have no opinion with which to differ from yours.

If you're alleging conscious, intentional propaganda, I'm going to want to see some proof.  The US entertainment industry taken as a group is extremely leftward in politics.  Claiming intentional propaganda in favor of torture is an extraordinary claim that plays way against type.  As Carl Saga said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

As to your proposals for your fantasy game, I defy you to find a way that will let a villain automatically beat all the ordinary non-torture security measures we have in place in the real -- repeat, real -- world.

I don't think a 100% successful method of doing anything important exists in the real world.  That's why I said I could do "plausible."

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes. And how realistic is that? I do not consider the villains of, say, True Lies to be very realistic. Instead, let us look at a real life example. The World Trade Center. It features brutal and murderous suicide warriors brainwashed into thinking of their victims as subhuman and carefully trained to carry out one real-life attack. In that scenario, the ticking time bomb scenario falls completely apart. The main plotter was already on the radar and had been so for years. Various intelligence agencies, US and others, had kept a careful eye on the organisation. The agencies had months of warning that something was in the wind. Ultimately, what allowed the attack to achieve its 50% success was poor communication between various agencies and finally the administration. (Please note that I am not blaming the GWB administration here. It was a different time then and previous to 9/11 such an attack was unimaginable in not only the public mind but also in the minds of many who should have known better. Had Gore won the election, he might have been caught off guard, too.)

I'm trying to make sure I understand your reference to 9/11.  I think you're making a case for some intel being ubiquitous.  From an information standpoint it's difficult-to-impossible to pull off something big that comes totally out of the blue, catching everybody offguard with no clues or forewarning prior to when the plan starts in motion.  Do I have this right?
 

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Try to insert an organisation of torturers in the scenario above and explain to me how it could have achieved what the ordinary intelligence agencies had failed to accomplish with conventional methods, giving them the same months of time to operate in. Then explain why the poor communication problem would not have applied to them.

The US did not perceive there was the threat, let alone let alone comprehend its immediacy that would require torture, so there would be no difference.  With nobody trying to stop the timer at 007, the time bomb simply ticks down and explodes, which is what happened in 9/11.

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

In order to justify the ticking clock scenario for the WTC attack, you once again need to presume that the ordinary intelligence agencies would have completely failed to gain even an inkling of the attack up till 24 hours before the attack happened. Which was not what actually happened.

Information that exists but has been underestimated might as well not exist if an investigator with 24 hours left before the 9/11 attacks occur has to fill out requests in triplicate and allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.  To stop 9/11 our imaginary investigator would need detailed information as close to immediately as is possible and specifics like hijacker names and flight numbers.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes. In how many of these have torture managed to save the child's life where conventional interrogation provably could not? Please link me to respectable real world sources.

I'm not sure the word "provably" fits.  This sort of thing is not an experiment with methods and controls in place.  We can research cases.  We can divide them into ones where torture was employed and those that aren't and look at success rates.  But unless one success rate is 0 and the other is 100%, you won't get a remotely provable result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Don Edwards said:
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Kill or harm. But usually, it's simpler to do the one you DONT want to do, so ...

Shoot to stop the threat.

As a civilian or police officer, if another person isn't posing a threat sufficient to justify administering a potentially-fatal wound to stop the threat, you aren't justified in shooting the guy at all. And you're far more likely to stop that threat by attempting to shoot the center of the body than by attempting to hit an arm or leg. If you aren't a marksman with lots of recent training, some combat-like experience, and a weapon you're extremely familiar with, you definitely shouldn't try to shoot a weapon out of a person's hand.

Also, you need to be cognizant of what's behind your target. Because there's a good chance at least one bullet will miss, and some chance that a bullet will go through - then whatever's behind your guy gets hit.

Yes. You continued my sentence much better than I would be able to, but it's exactly what I had in mind.

18 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

He had been working with a youth who had given him some decent info, but then the youth was sent to 'special interrogation.' When he returned from it and the interrogator resumed work, he had clammed up. Totally. He no longer cooperated in any way or form. The interrogator could not prove anything but was morally certain that his subject had undergone torture in the 'special interrogation' unit.

This doesn't prove torture doesn't work ; even if the torture didn't revealed anything useful, it would just prove that normal interrogation works better.

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Sadly, there's nothing that can work that perfectly, guaranteed, every time for everyone.  There's just too much individual variation in lean body mass, circulating blood volume and protein levels, sensitivity to each drug, and sensitivity to each side effect of each drug.

Yes, unfortunately just magic is working like magic ...

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

As for memory loss, I've heard recommendations to use midazolam as a sedative for parrots specifically because it can cause memory loss surrounding the office visit.  Birds are smart enough to figure out, after a trip to a strange and scary place where things happened to them they did not understand, the next time they're brought there, the same sort of things might happen, and they get all the more upset because of those bad memories.  Make them forget the scary visit, and they arrive calm and curious for the next visit.  Most office visits are calm, fun interactions with the vet, especially if their owner has done some basic towel training and handling ahead if time.  One bad visit where blood has to be drawn or an x-ray taken could turn those happy visits into a battle forevermore, each struggle making the problem worse, if no sedative is used.  I can see that sort of proactive use applying for small children, too.

What makes sense for animals makes considerably less sense for people ; people are MUCH better at analysis and are therefore able to REALIZE they are missing some memory. And people are also very good at imagining dangers ; it's quite likely that what they IMAGINE happened in that missing time will be WORSE than what really happened.

I would be surprised if no woman sued for rape after losing memory. And, unlike various other claims patient might be inclined to make, this one would be hard to defend against.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In order to justify the ticking clock scenario for the WTC attack, you once again need to presume that the ordinary intelligence agencies would have completely failed to gain even an inkling of the attack up till 24 hours before the attack happened. Which was not what actually happened.

I would say that cases like WTC proves only that if intelligence agencies fail to realize the danger more than 24 hours in advance, they are also likely to not realize it in the last 24 hours.

Analyzing some case where the attack WAS discovered will be better, but ... those tend to be top secret. Generally, I doubt we can reach any useful conclusion here as best arguments both for and against torture will be unknown to general public (which presumably includes us).

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Would you torture a bad guy to save a city, is as I've said extreme.   A kidnapper has taken a child and demanded money saying that the child has been buried in a remote location with X hours of air.  He will only reveal the location after he is paid Y amount of money and given safe passage out of the country.  He is captured before his deadline.   Do you torture him for the location of the child?  People have attempted kidnap scenarios like this in the real world.

Yes. In how many of these have torture managed to save the child's life where conventional interrogation provably could not? Please link me to respectable real world sources.

Note that in cases like this, I think that the kidnapper deserves it. Also, paying ransom is VERY bad idea as it encourages others to try to do the same. And, the information needed can be relatively easily verified. So, if the proofs that the caught person is really the kidnapper are solid enough and normal interrogation doesn't seem to work ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

This doesn't prove torture doesn't work ; even if the torture didn't revealed anything useful, it would just prove that normal interrogation works better.

Which is a reason to stick with interrogation without torture.

Quote

What makes sense for animals makes considerably less sense for people

Note that I specified "small children," who have a lot in common with animals, such as being non-verbal and having very different response to a great many drugs than adult humans have.

Quote

people are MUCH better at analysis and are therefore able to REALIZE they are missing some memory. And people are also very good at imagining dangers ; it's quite likely that what they IMAGINE happened in that missing time will be WORSE than what really happened.

I would be surprised if no woman sued for rape after losing memory. And, unlike various other claims patient might be inclined to make, this one would be hard to defend against.

Drugs which cause the patient to not remmeber the procedure are used all the time inanesthesia!  Far more procedures are done with the patient awake (that is, responsive) than people realize.  When I had my wisdom teeth out, I was asking the doctors about everything they were doing, including what they were giving me IV.  The doctor told me that one of the drugs was "what makes you forget --" and the memory goes from clear to a complete blank as the drug hit my brain.  If I hadn't been asking, I would have assumed that was the point when I fell asleep, but anesthesia is very different from sleep, and the drugs can have some interesting effects.

As for rape, most procedures have several people involved at any given time, at least until recovery, and hospitals have plenty of procedures in place to try to prevent any misbehavior by staff of all sorts.

Quote

Analyzing some case where the attack WAS discovered will be better, but ... those tend to be top secret. Generally, I doubt we can reach any useful conclusion here as best arguments both for and against torture will be unknown to general public (which presumably includes us).

All the more reason to listen to the testimony of interrogators such as the one TOH was quoting, people who are experts in the field.  If you look at cases of torture like Guantanomo, it's generally people who weren't professionals, but rather sadistic amateurs who are either looking for an excuse to make their "enemy" suffer or think they know more than they do about how to get information.

Quote

Note that in cases like this, I think that the kidnapper deserves it.

Let's keep revenge/punishment/deterrent apart from what will actually get the job done.  If giving the kidnapper a nice meal and a pleasant conversation will get the information out of them better than torture, would you refuse to wine and dine them just becase they don't deserve it?  Not to mention the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept at the heart of our system of justice.  How willing are you to torture someone who actually is innocent?  Because if we allow torture, that is going to happen, and the more we use it, the more innocent people will be tortured.

Quote

So, if the proofs that the caught person is really the kidnapper are solid enough and normal interrogation doesn't seem to work ...

Ah, but either method takes time to work, and at any given moment, you have a choice between sticking with what you've already invested considerable time and effort into, or switching to something completely different which will be starting from square one.  How can you really tell whether the interrogator won't get the information if given just a little more time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

What makes sense for animals makes considerably less sense for people

Note that I specified "small children," who have a lot in common with animals, such as being non-verbal and having very different response to a great many drugs than adult humans have.

Maybe you should be more specific (like, what ages you speak about). Although it's true that children rarely sue for rape ...

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

Drugs which cause the patient to not remmeber the procedure are used all the time inanesthesia!  Far more procedures are done with the patient awake (that is, responsive) than people realize.  When I had my wisdom teeth out, I was asking the doctors about everything they were doing, including what they were giving me IV.  The doctor told me that one of the drugs was "what makes you forget --" and the memory goes from clear to a complete blank as the drug hit my brain.  If I hadn't been asking, I would have assumed that was the point when I fell asleep, but anesthesia is very different from sleep, and the drugs can have some interesting effects.

But in cases like this, not only people generally assume they were sleeping, they are informed well in advance that they will receive drugs which would alter their mental state - in advance enough that they REMEMBER they were informed.

In the "stop the person from eating the wall, beds, and chairs" case, you actually MUST surprise the person. And they would be even MORE surprised if the drug effect hit memory from before the administration (which I believe is happening - if the drug inhibits conversion from short term memory to long term memory, the memory gap starts before you get it).

Also, interesting. Didn't realize this would be an option, on the other hand especially in case of dental operations making person unconscious would be risky. (I'm probably lucky that my wisdom teeth went out relatively easily, so local anaesthesia was sufficient).

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

As for rape, most procedures have several people involved at any given time, at least until recovery, and hospitals have plenty of procedures in place to try to prevent any misbehavior by staff of all sorts.

Planed procedures, yes.

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Analyzing some case where the attack WAS discovered will be better, but ... those tend to be top secret. Generally, I doubt we can reach any useful conclusion here as best arguments both for and against torture will be unknown to general public (which presumably includes us).

All the more reason to listen to the testimony of interrogators such as the one TOH was quoting, people who are experts in the field.  If you look at cases of torture like Guantanomo, it's generally people who weren't professionals, but rather sadistic amateurs who are either looking for an excuse to make their "enemy" suffer or think they know more than they do about how to get information.

Especially the published case ; professionals wouldn't be careless enough to get published like this.

Also, there are much more sadistic amateurs than professionals.

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Note that in cases like this, I think that the kidnapper deserves it.

Let's keep revenge/punishment/deterrent apart from what will actually get the job done.  If giving the kidnapper a nice meal and a pleasant conversation will get the information out of them better than torture, would you refuse to wine and dine them just becase they don't deserve it?

Of course not. In fact, I believe in concept of last meal. And I even mentioned that other forms of interrogations should be tried before (especially considering that they wouldn't be possible after ; remember that if violence isn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it).

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

Not to mention the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept at the heart of our system of justice.  How willing are you to torture someone who actually is innocent?

Just as I specifically mentioned that the guilt must be determined beforehand - although I agree that the fact there will be not enough time for the usual process of determining guilt (that is, in court) is troublesome.

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

Because if we allow torture, that is going to happen, and the more we use it, the more innocent people will be tortured.

Is slippery scope argument even allowed in this forum?

If we disallow torture because we are afraid innocent people will be tortured, we shouldn't pretend we are doing it because torture is not effective. Also, while the court obviously must provide binary verdict (guilty or innocent), the real situation is not so binary.

1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

So, if the proofs that the caught person is really the kidnapper are solid enough and normal interrogation doesn't seem to work ...

Ah, but either method takes time to work, and at any given moment, you have a choice between sticking with what you've already invested considerable time and effort into, or switching to something completely different which will be starting from square one.  How can you really tell whether the interrogator won't get the information if given just a little more time?

Why do you ask ME? Am I the interrogator?

Obviously, the answer wouldn't be simple, it will depend on the kidnapper, the situation AND on what interrogators and what torturers you have available. Considering usually you don't have experienced torturer available (in some cases, the best person available would be parent, which doesn't mean they would be that good but just that you are really short of alternatives) while your interrogator should be at least usable, turning to torture might be bad idea unless it's very likely the person will break extremely easily. Buuut ... the kidnapper should definitely NOT know this. The good cop/bad cop method suggest you should mention "Jack is already on the way" in right moment instead.

 

Another concept I believe in is that criminals should always fear it will be worse. Even people guilty of multiple murder should fear that they will get WORSE verdict if they kill few more people as well. Meanwhile, our law system seems to be heading to point where person who committed copyright violation would basically get same sentence no matter if he also kill few police officers while attempting to flee, which is not really good argument for surrendering, is it?

(Of course, with most copyright violators being college kids, the risk of them being armed is not so big, but still ; we should stop pretending that copyright violation has anything to do with attacking ships, killing crew and stealing their cargo. Pirates DID resisted arrest by killing people, because they couldn't be hanged twice anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Is slippery scope argument even allowed in this forum?

Certainly. I just can't see what its practical use would be. Let's say that I wanted to apply butter or olive oil to the Hubble telescope, for example. Out in the vacuum of space and the freezing temperature the fats and slippery oils would soon either harden or evaporate. The only real effect would be to get the lenses smeared, I think.

Of course, if you just do it to regular telescopes down here on the surface, you just wouldn't be able to apply a proper grip to the darn things. I don't think they would provide a very good view if people have to desperately juggle their telescopes or fight to maintain their grip. Mind you, it wouldn't be as bad with microscopes. These are fairly stationary and as long as the surface they stand on is level and you don't accidentally jiggle them when you look into the lenses, they should stay put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'd say your hardware is safe for reasons already discussed (24 as inaccurate entertainment)

If you are alleging 24 was de facto propaganda in favor of torture, I'm good with that.  I can agree or disagree by my own interpretation of the show and, as previously stated, I haven't seen it so I have no opinion with which to differ from yours.

If you're alleging conscious, intentional propaganda, I'm going to want to see some proof.  The US entertainment industry taken as a group is extremely leftward in politics.  Claiming intentional propaganda in favor of torture is an extraordinary claim that plays way against type.  As Carl Saga said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Meh. I am no conspiracy theorist. I might go so far as to say that it is conceivable but that I am personally unconvinced of it. I would demand just as rigorous proof of it as you would before I bought into it. Unfortunately, the deleterious effect on the public mind remains there even if it was unintentional or inadvertent.

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I don't think a 100% successful method of doing anything important exists in the real world.  That's why I said I could do "plausible."

I'm trying to make sure I understand your reference to 9/11.  I think you're making a case for some intel being ubiquitous.  From an information standpoint it's difficult-to-impossible to pull off something big that comes totally out of the blue, catching everybody offguard with no clues or forewarning prior to when the plan starts in motion.  Do I have this right?

Fair enough, and you are substantially correct, yes. It is an important reason I object to the ticking clock argument. Another reason is that conventional interrogation may -- may -- be slower than torture, but it is not necessarily slow and it is by far more reliable.

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The US did not perceive there was the threat, let alone let alone comprehend its immediacy that would require torture, so there would be no difference.  With nobody trying to stop the timer at 007, the time bomb simply ticks down and explodes, which is what happened in 9/11.

I have to object to the phrase 'immediacy that would require torture' due to my stated conviction that torture is unreliable and counterproductive, hence never required nor even advisable. But I agree with the rest.

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Information that exists but has been underestimated might as well not exist if an investigator with 24 hours left before the 9/11 attacks occur has to fill out requests in triplicate and allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.  To stop 9/11 our imaginary investigator would need detailed information as close to immediately as is possible and specifics like hijacker names and flight numbers.

Hum. I do not quite agree with that last as the plot could still have been foiled at a very late stage with the simple instructions of "Ground all flights. Scramble interceptors over important areas. Any planes that disregard instructions to land and be inspected are to be forced down." Admittedly such an order would have to come from someone very high up, but if the Oval Office is issuing the order it would presumably happen, right? Still, you could reasonably call that a quibble.

The reason the information was underestimated was, once again, the mindset of the times. Terrorists had never acted in such a manner before. If someone had told me such a story on the tenth of September that year, I would likely have boggled at it, or even scoffed. It is all too easy to condemn the intelligence agencies and the administration in hindsight. Whatever other issues I might have with the GWB administration, failing to prevent 9/11 is not one.

(Actually preventing it -- now, that would have been a heroic tale and one where those responsible would deserve great honour and plaudits. Sadly, this did not happen.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is all too easy to condemn the intelligence agencies and the administration in hindsight.

Shortly after that event I read an article laying out - based solely on publicly available information - exactly why the government really should have expected the recent terrorist attack on a US Navy vessel in port while the Vice President was visiting it.

Everything in the article was true, except for one detail: there had been no such attack... and that was the point of the article. They have evidence credibly pointing at TOO MANY possible terrorist attacks, every day... they can't all be true, and the government can't act to disrupt all of them without massive violations of the rights of innocent people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

They have evidence credibly pointing at TOO MANY possible terrorist attacks, every day...

I would argue that finding out the ones which are actually happening would be simpler if they didn't eavesdropped in MMORPGs ... but I doubt informations obtained there are considered credible anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now