Guantanamo Bay

[Cedars]

I did read them. I still don't think the Germans cooperated. Perhaps "failed to interfere" but I wouldn't call it "cooperate." They knew the Americans were watching him, but it wasn't clear they knew WHY.

 

If you do not think throwing an innocent man in jail in a foreign country, (alledgedly) sodomizing him, and detaining him for five months qualifies as a "big freakin' mistake" I am terrified beyond measure at what you think SHOULD constitute a "big freakin' mistake"

 

And you're totally misrepresenting my point about jailing CIA agents. We shouldn't jail them every time someone "cries" torture, but if they are torturing people, then YES they should go to jail.

 

TFS

 

Being as its been alleged 'sam' who interviewed him in Afghanistan was a German national (who needed to ask others permission before answering some of his questions) and told him his wife was no longer in Germany I would say the Germans were in full cooperation with the Americans.

 

Could you post the link that says "sodomizes"? I did not see that.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, maybe the Germans were in cooperation - it doesn't make it any less awful.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

And stop saying that "everybody agrees on these points" when many people have repeatedly told you that we do NOT agree. It is rude, disrespectful, and in violation of our rules because of that.

It is not rude, disrespectful or in voilation of any rules to attempt to put together some principals in which we are in agreement.

 

Thusfar, nobody has disagreed with the points. A couple of people have criticised the phrasing, and a few people have defined themselves into thinking I was making a totally different point.

 

One problem is so many people here are so emotional they will not bring themselves to listen to the other so I am trying to listen to all sides and noting principals of agreement. If you don't like that then you have to simply say you disagree with the point and why and if it amounts to a genunie disagreement then I will ammend the point.

 

This isn't the first time I've experienced this type of agro. Sometimes, all I do is repeat the words I was told and add at the beginning 'so, according to you ...' and people panic at the thought of ever being held to account so they waste loads of time by quibbling about the phrasing and still find it hard to accept the statement.

 

Luckily, you have also made one such argument which I will address.

 

Firstly, you can't deny it. You argue you cannot know one way or the other. Secondly, are you saying that almost none of the GB inmates actually have links to terror? If you believe that a small %age do, then it must make us safer. The question, 'is it worth it' may arise but 3 should still be agreed by all sides.

 

This is a very, very, short sighted argument. It does not take into account the possibility of the abuses at GB leading to other people deciding to become terrorists

 

My first argument that all Michaelangelica said in response to my point no 3 was that she didn't know either way and so couldn't agree. However she also could not disagree. So we moved onto asking her if she genuinely believed dangerous people were not in GB. If there were, then logically people must be safer. I find it very unlikely that anybody will disagree with that, and she hasn't yet.

 

However, you have now said 'not necessarily, yes dangerous men are probably in GB but GB may have other influences which could create a greater harm'. Eg It might be worth releasing dangerous men to wing the battle for world opinion. This is what I meant by

The question, 'is it worth it' may arise but 3 should still be agreed by all sides.

 

I 100% accept the principal of yourargument and as I have said in my above quote, I think this argument plays a massive part in this debate. It may not change the point on which I found agreement but it certainly suggests my point was badly phrased.

 

I will now rephrase my point 3 from

 

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer.

 

to

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer from the direct threat posed by those terrorist suspects held.

 

Can we finally agree?

 

If you do not think throwing an innocent man in jail in a foreign country, (alledgedly) sodomizing him, and detaining him for five months qualifies as a "big freakin' mistake" I am terrified beyond measure at what you think SHOULD constitute a "big freakin' mistake"

 

You did say the government should be able to imprison innocent people to protect us from terrorism.

 

So. Let's say I know this guy named "stabbystainy" He thinks that America is pure unadulterated evil, and would like to kill a bunch of civilians. He wants to be a terrorists, and is trying to buy plane tickets to Afghanistan.

 

The FBI wises up to him, but when YOU try to get on a plane, they pick you up by mistake.

 

"Sebbbysteiny?" They say, "sounds like an alias for the Stabbystainy. Let's take him to Afghanistan and rape him a few times, see if we can get a confession."

 

So that happens - eventually, a few years later, they realize the real Stabbystainy is still loose somewhere in the Midwest and release you - a little worse for wear. You're a terrorism suspect, so you don't have a job, & can't get one. The people who raped you are secret agents so you don't get any justice.

 

Are we safer from terrorism because the FBI got to arrest and detain an innocent person, namely YOU?

 

Right - but your not worried, because you're beyond reproach.

 

I do wish you would stop loading your arguments with emotion at the expense of any genuine logical points. Not that I blame you, after all your melodramatic style has gained 73 rep points whilst my clear cut logical style only attracts a meagre 12, but I am totally unconvinced by emotional arguments because I feel that when one has to resort to emotional crowd pleasing tactics, it is to hide a fundamental flaw that reason cannot escape.

 

The problem with emotional arguments is it is so damned easy to reverse them.

 

If you do not think letting a guilty terrorist run free, allowing him to commit crimes against humanity and turn innocent lives into butcher meat by killing innocent men women children and babies, dislocating limbs and mutilating the brains of hundreds in your local bus and trains qualifies as a "big freakin' mistake" I am terrified beyond measure of preventable crimes at what you think SHOULD constitute a "big freakin' mistake"

 

Or I can say

 

you did say the government should be compelled to release those it knows are terrorists but cannot try to protect their human rights.

 

So. Let's say I know this guy named "TheFaithlessStone". He is a totally innocent person travelling on a bus with his family, kids, parents, grandparents, the lot. He wants to deliver his kids to school and get to work.

 

Some terrorist dude just released from GB steps onto the bus with a super powerful bomb on his back (well you exagerated truth by claiming Americans 'rape' as an interrogation technique).

 

So What happens - Boom. Limbs and body parts everywhere. 1000 people died, including all but one of your kids and your grand parents. Your surviving kid has had a ball bearing smash her spine and has had her face totally disfigured and must now live life as a disfigured cripple. You look around and see this picture everywhere in the bus. You see your own arm with watch still attaced at the other end of the street and your arm and one leg are totally severed from your body with blood oozing out of it. In your last agonising minutes of consciousness you notice this is repeated accross the entire street and 4 appartment blocks has collapsed (super powerful bomb) and cries of pain everywhere. Two minutes later mobile phones start to ring wondering if their loved ones are safe. You happen to answer one and tell the paniced wife that her husband was actually in the thick of it and she should start collecting the body parts for his funerial. Then you hang up but not before hearing her burst into devistated tears. In your last seconds of life you regret that your only surviving cripple of a daugther now has no relatives to look after her.

 

Will YOU now be conforted by the thought that the terrorist was only released because some negligent CIA officer released him thanks to pressure from massive campaigning led by some git called "TheFaithfulrock" and your crippled daugther will never get compensation for the DEVISTATION caused to YOUR family from the CIA or the do gooder git.

 

Are we more respectful of human rights because the FBI was forced to release a known terrorist who killed many innocent people including YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

Right - but your not worried, because you're very unlikely to be the actual victim.

 

 

I suggest we put an end to this theatrics and return to the issues.

[TheFaithfulStone]

whilst my clear cut logical style

 

:hyper:

 

Okay, stebby.

 

Anyway, I don't think you could have missed the point MORE completely.

 

Let's recap.

 

1) You said it was okay for the government to imprison 1,000 innocent people to prevent a terrorist attack.

 

2) I said I nominated you to be one of the imprisoned innocents.

 

3) You said you wouldn't be because you had no connection to terrorism, and if anyone could find one, you'd be happy to go to prison.

 

4) I pointed out that you don't NEED to have a connection to terrorism to be imprisoned if you let the government imprison innocent people - that someone with a similar name could get you on a list you don't want to be on.

 

My implication was that you were willing to imprison 1,000 innocent people, as long as you weren't one of them.

 

Have you ever read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." You should, it's instructive.

 

 

You responded with the story about TheFaithlessStone, which was clever, with the point being that I was unwilling to sacrifice my life so that innocent people wouldn't be imprisoned.

 

The difference here is simple. Your scenario is based on a non-sequiter.

How does the failure to imprison an innocent person result in the release of a guilty one?

 

TFS

[Cedars]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html

 

TFS

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1390258,00.html

 

Body cavity searches suck. No argument there. But thats not sodomy even if the courts were to rule that action was excessive.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You got an article that says he was forcibly and anally searched, I got one that says there was no searchin' to it.

 

I think the issue of whether he was raped or not is kinda up in the air. The issue of whether we imprisoned and abused an innocent person really isn't.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Your post is much improved (which probably means you will not get as many rep points :lol:)

 

Okay, stebby.

 

Anyway, I don't think you could have missed the point MORE completely.

 

Let's recap.

 

 

Shoot.

1) You said it was okay for the government to imprison 1,000 innocent people to prevent a terrorist attack.

Not really. I said such numbers were only okay IF AND ONLY IF that terrorist was a nuclear strike AND that such arrests were necessary to prevent that strike. For a simple suicide bombing threat, I think a number in the region of 5 innocent people arrested is more appropriate and for a 9/11 type strike, I would say a number of 20 innocent people is more appropriate. But that is me, and everybody has different values. Of course these people must be released once the threat passes or when interrogations show some of the suspects to be innocent. Stop trying to twist what I say into something I didn't say.

 

2) I said I nominated you to be one of the imprisoned innocents.

This is illogical. What you are asking is whether I am prepared to die or martyr myself for my beliefs. Whether I am or am not does not make my arguments any more or less correct. I think what you are really trying to do is EMOTIONALLY try to make your argument stronger than it is by creating a false connection. As such, it can be reversed very easily. I nominate you to be one of the first victims of terror caused by releasing a terrorist.

 

3) You said you wouldn't be because you had no connection to terrorism, and if anyone could find one, you'd be happy to go to prison.

 

I was making the point that I would happy to subject myself to the same rules as everybody else and live with the GB 'threat' if it prevents the greater threat of terror. If the terror cell has my name on it, so be it, but if the suicide bomb has my name on it, then also, so be it. Personally, I would prefer to be hit by an interrogation knowing full well that there is not a chance in a million years an interrogator would still suspect me after even a 20 second chat.

 

4) I pointed out that you don't NEED to have a connection to terrorism to be imprisoned if you let the government imprison innocent people - that someone with a similar name could get you on a list you don't want to be on.

 

You appear to have totally misunderstood the criteria for imprisonment in a place like GB.

 

Firstly, the government MUST have evidence strongly suggesting a link to terror. Who judges this evidence? I would rather a judge do it, but if the Judiciary don't want anything to do with the process, then it must be a politician or CIA agent. However, intelligence is never perfect and if it turns out to be wrong, then I am aware there is a risk innocent people could go to prison.

 

Secondly, that evidence must not be admissable in a court of law OR it is admissable, but to do so would pose an even greater risk to national security.

 

The burden of proof I believe should be 'much more likely than not' (ie about 60-70%) rather than beyond reasonable doubt (about 95%).

 

If the government sticks to this criteria, innocent people will still go to prison, but there will also be evidence against them and there will be a very strong moral case to keep GB.

 

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely you must acknowledge all the above as being a legitimate, quite reasonable, and factually accurate reasons summarising the moral case for GB! I'm not saying you have to support GB, but just acknowledge that the above position, contrary to your above misrepresentation, is still a reasonable position to take which raises real points that must be addressed very seriously.

 

However, this must be counterbalanced with other issues such as whether this is conterproductive and creates more terrorists than it choses or weakens world opinion. Also one must weigh the risk to our society for having a place that is, as you so passionately keep on stating time and time again, above the law. I believe all sides supporting GB will also acknowledge that these points are also a very reasonable position to take which raises real points that must be addressed very seriously.

 

So what i've been trying to do for so long is just try to find an accurate summary of all the real issues involved which includes recognising the arguments of those you disagree with just as much as it includes recognising those of your own particular side. Only then can one actually try and balance these issues.

 

My implication was that you were willing to imprison 1,000 innocent people, as long as you weren't one of them.

 

That's right, and you had no reasonable basis for making or even raising that implication and it stinks of Ad hominem to me

 

You responded with the story about TheFaithlessStone, which was clever, with the point being that I was unwilling to sacrifice my life so that innocent people wouldn't be imprisoned.

 

The difference here is simple. Your scenario is based on a non-sequiter.

How does the failure to imprison an innocent person result in the release of a guilty one?

 

If you think it is a non sequitur, then you have not understood the points made to you, which you should now consider.

 

How does the failure to imprison an innocent person result in the release of a guilty one? Simple. Imagine you have a terror suspect. You are 70% sure he is guilty but the evidence is inadmissable in a court of law. You can either hold him in GB or release him. Now imagine you have 100 other similar suspects. If you decide to release them all, you will release 70 terrorists onto the streets and they will kill innocent people. If you hold them all you will imprison 30 innocent people. So what do you do? Do you shut down GB and release 70 guilty men or do you keep it open and hold 30 innocents?

[TheFaithfulStone]

For a simple suicide bombing threat, I think a number in the region of 5 innocent people arrested is more appropriate and for a 9/11 type strike, I would say a number of 20 innocent people is more appropriate.

 

Fine, although your criteria are certainly not clear from your previous posts.

 

This is illogical.

 

No it isn't. It's a basic principle of logic that it should ALWAYS be true. If I say - "People deserve to live. Therefore it wrong to kill them." - that is a true syllogism. If I say "People deserve to live. Therefore it is wrong to kill them. Unless they really deserve to die." Then either my conclusion or my postulate must be incorrect.

 

If you say - "Imprisoning innocent people can help to prevent terrorism. Therefore the government should be able to imprison innocent people to prevent terrorism. Unless it's me." Either your postulate or your conclusions is wrong.

 

In any case, you've subtly switched up your argument, which I notice you're EXTREMELY good at. It has gone from "The government should be allowed to imprison innocent people." To "The government should be allowed to question & interrogate innocent people."

 

Those are of course, NOT the same thing.

 

You appear to have totally misunderstood the criteria for imprisonment in a place like GB.

 

And you appear to have missed the entire discussion about Kalhed el-Masri, used car salesman, whose primary crime is having the same name as Kalhed el-Masri, terrorist.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, Stebby - your statistics are CRAZY wrong.

 

Let us say, that in the world 99.9% of people are not terrorists. (That still leaves us like 6 million terrorists in the world, so we should be good.)

 

Let us say that we identify terrorists correctly 70% of the time, and incorrectly 30% of the time. (That is, 70% of the time we ID somone who is a terrorist as a terrorist, and vice versa.)

 

Unfortunately, this leads us to conclude that 90.4% of people accused of terrorism are not actually terrorists!

 

 

Of course, my analysis is not perfect, since I assumed that we're basically looking at all 6 billion people to see if they're terrorists. I don't know what percentage we ARE looking at, but I suspect of the people we look at, most turn out to NOT be terrorists.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

For a simple suicide bombing threat, I think a number in the region of 5 innocent people arrested is more appropriate and for a 9/11 type strike, I would say a number of 20 innocent people is more appropriate.

Fine, although your criteria are certainly not clear from your previous posts.

Understanding is a two way process. I must try to make my points as clearly as possible, but you must try and see the argument or principal I am talking about and not get caught up in disputes of phrasings. I suspect we are both at fault here.

 

This is illogical.

No it isn't. It's a basic principle of logic that it should ALWAYS be true. If I say - "People deserve to live. Therefore it wrong to kill them." - that is a true syllogism. If I say "People deserve to live. Therefore it is wrong to kill them. Unless they really deserve to die." Then either my conclusion or my postulate must be incorrect.

My personal desire to not be imprisoned does not effect whether it is right to imprison terrorist suspects. Neither does your desire not to die brutally undermine your argument that terrorist suspects should be released in case they are innocent. Both are Ad Hominem, attacking the messanger, not the argument.

 

But I'm also bemused that your example of logic itself logically flawed.

If I say - "People deserve to live. Therefore it wrong to kill them." - that is a true syllogism.

If people deserve to live, it does not follow that it is wrong to kill them. Some may 'deserve' to live more and if there are finite resources then, as every doctor knows, it is not wrong to let someone die.

 

Collateral damage is also a legitimate consequence of war as long as the civilians are not deliberately targetted and efforts are taken to minimise collateral damage.

 

There are numerous examples where the right to life (or as you call it, 'people deserve to live' does not impose an obligation on others not to kill them).

 

If you say - "Imprisoning innocent people can help to prevent terrorism. Therefore the government should be able to imprison innocent people to prevent terrorism.

As I said earlier, allowing intelligence officers to make a judgement call that might later turn out to be wrong can help to prevent terrorism. Technically, that means Imprisoning innocent people can help to prevent terrorism, but you seem to have already begun twisting what I say to suggest into something I did not say. But I'll go with it anyway.

It does not follow that since a measure CAN reduce terror, that the government SHOULD do it. The government must outway the pros and the cons. For example, a nuclear strike eliminating the middle East CAN reduce terror (probably to almost zero), but it does not mean a government SHOULD do it.

 

I'm getting concerned. Surely you must see that you have made logical leaps of faith in those statements. If you can't even string two sentences together logically, what hope does one have on obtaining a reasonable result in an entire post???????

 

In any case, you've subtly switched up your argument, which I notice you're EXTREMELY good at. It has gone from "The government should be allowed to imprison innocent people." To "The government should be allowed to question & interrogate innocent people."

 

Those are of course, NOT the same thing.

Look at it from an impartial observer. I have put forward a position which has not changed. You have interpretted it as being something different from what it was. Could it not be that after a few posts of questions and answers, I have begun to communicate my ideas better and you might have begun to understand my ideas better?

 

But, at the risk of putting a spanner in the works of our new found harmony, acceptance of the latter logically accepts the former too.

 

Where do you expect the interrogations to take place? at home??? No, in GB. So to interrogate and question terror suspects, one must be able to hold them without trial for as long as the interrogation is necessary. That could last weeks or months. Then, if it looks like they are terrorists, they could be held for years.

 

You appear to have totally misunderstood the criteria for imprisonment in a place like GB.

 

And you appear to have missed the entire discussion about Kalhed el-Masri, used car salesman, whose primary crime is having the same name as Kalhed el-Masri, terrorist.

Are you for real? Do you really think the CIA said to themselves, 'Kalhed el-Masri has the same name as a wanted person. Lets arrest him for fun!!!' If so, you are mad. It was a blatant genuine case of mistaken identity. **** happens.

 

And I have no doubt there are other terror suspects in GB who might later turn out to be innocent, but not too many. This kind of things happen in all systems of justice and it doesn't change a thing.

 

If you insist on finding a target to blame, blame god or the little green elf men from mars for not making perfect systems possible.

[sebbysteiny]

Okay, Stebby - your statistics are CRAZY wrong.

 

Let us say, that in the world 99.9% of people are not terrorists. (That still leaves us like 6 million terrorists in the world, so we should be good.)

 

Let us say that we identify terrorists correctly 70% of the time, and incorrectly 30% of the time. (That is, 70% of the time we ID somone who is a terrorist as a terrorist, and vice versa.)

 

Unfortunately, this leads us to conclude that 90.4% of people accused of terrorism are not actually terrorists!

 

 

Of course, my analysis is not perfect, since I assumed that we're basically looking at all 6 billion people to see if they're terrorists. I don't know what percentage we ARE looking at, but I suspect of the people we look at, most turn out to NOT be terrorists.

 

TFS

What de f*ck? This post is almost worth a quality point just for the comedy value. Your picture had coloured lines and everything.

 

Your analysis about the number of terrorists is totally flawed and irrelevent. If your going to try and get numbers regarding how many innocent people will be arrested in consequence of my 70% limit, what matters is the number of terrorist suspects (ie ones which the CIA is aware of), not the number of terrorists.

 

Also, your statistics are bonkers. Those with a 70% chance or more of being a terrorist should be held in a place like GB. Those with a less than 70% chance of being terrorists will be released. Thus you cannot say that someone who is released has a 70% chance of being a terrorist. It could be as low as 0.01%. On average, a number like 20% is more realistic. And the same applies for those held to be terrorists. The %age varies between 70 and 99.999999%. The average is probably at about 90% of correctly identified terrorists.

 

I also I would probably have to be high on drugs to work out what you expect this analysis to prove.

[InfiniteNow]

Tone it down Sebby. You are clearly in disagreement, but you are attacking other points when you should be supporting your own. There's bound to be disagreement when people speak with terms like "probably," "could be," "might," and other such terms. This is no reason to get emotional.

 

 

Cheers. :lol:

[pgrmdave]

Both of you are doing nothing more than arguing about potential hypothetical numbers. Provide factual evidence, or agree that neither of your numbers have any actual bearing on reality.

[sebbysteiny]

Erm, let it be noted, I have no plans to add numbers and statistics because

I would probably have to be high on drugs to work out what ... this analysis [can] prove.

 

I stand by my suggestion that the burden of proof should be at about 60-70% for terrorism cases. This does not require statistical analysis.

 

There's bound to be disagreement when people speak with terms like "probably," "could be," "might," and other such terms.

 

In a complicated world, there are always exceptions. Ignoring these by saying 'always' instead of 'probably' is a nieve and false choice of words .

[TheFaithfulStone]

Of course, dave.

 

My point was really more about Sebby's assertion that 70% "surety" should be good enough to keep someone in prison. My point was that results in 90% of the people you keep in prison not really being terrorists.

 

If he'd like to provide me with actual numbers of false positives and negatives, I'll certainly redo the math.

 

The main point was that a tolerance for 30% false positives results in MORE than 30% of the people imprisoned for terrorism being falsely accused!

 

I stand by my suggestion that the burden of proof should be at about 60-70% for terrorism cases. This does not require statistical analysis.

 

I think it does because I don't think you understand what that means.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

In a complicated world, there are always exceptions. Ignoring these by saying 'always' instead of 'probably' is a nieve and false choice of words .

I never made any such suggestion.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Alright, I can't let this one slide.

 

If people deserve to live, it does not follow that it is wrong to kill them. Some may 'deserve' to live more and if there are finite resources then, as every doctor knows, it is not wrong to let someone die.

 

Collateral damage is also a legitimate consequence of war as long as the civilians are not deliberately targetted and efforts are taken to minimise collateral damage.

 

There are numerous examples where the right to life (or as you call it, 'people deserve to live' does not impose an obligation on others not to kill them).

 

And therefore... The postulate is incorrect, or at least incomplete. People do not unequivocally deserve to live.

 

I think we're done.

 

TFS