We took lessons from the Soviets and Chinese on torture

[sirs]

My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form

Right, that is why you have to justify it.  That is also why you have to dehumanize the human beings responsible for such actions.  Interesting.

Justify calling a terrorist who brazingly kills, when not butchering innocent men, women, and children, an animal?  And you have a problem with that?  Interesting.  They just need therapy right?  Bad self esteem, Father made him wear women's underwear when he was a child, or something like that.  Just need to understand why they kill, then of course, they'll stop killing, be all nice nice, and we can all sing kumbuyaw     

[Universe Prince]

Some of the captives we have are well identified as leaders of Al Quieda , thus we have a reasonable certainty that these guys were in on plans of destruction tipical of Al Queida.

That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.

[Universe Prince]

You would draw on a body of knowledge previously developed to try to judge, possibly through mathematical-like formulae, the reliability of a technique or techniques to produce capitulation, the chance that ... assessment in the keenest way possible ... assessment of the damage ... projection of the longitudinal ramifications ... projection of the effect ...

So, you would take a guess and hope you thought of everything, and then go ahead with the torture.

[_JS]

My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form

Right, that is why you have to justify it.  That is also why you have to dehumanize the human beings responsible for such actions.  Interesting.

Justify calling a terrorist who brazingly kills, when not butchering innocent men, women, and children, an animal?  And you have a problem with that?  Interesting.  They just need therapy right?  Bad self esteem, Father made him wear women's underwear when he was a child, or something like that.  Just need to understand why they kill, then of course, they'll stop killing, be all nice nice, and we can all sing kumbuyaw     

Putting words in my mouth now? Nice.

Show me where I said that: "they need therapy" "bad self esteem" "Father made him wear women's underwear when he was a child, or something like that" "Just need to understand why they kill, then of course, they'll stop killing, be all nice nice, and we can all sing kumbuyaw[sp.]"

So now you've moved from justifying stripping another human being of his humanity to an ad hominem argument. It seems to me that you are having a lot more trouble with this issue than I am Sirs.

[Universe Prince]

Justify calling a terrorist who brazingly kills, when not butchering innocent men, women, and children, an animal?  And you have a problem with that?

I can't answer for JS, but I know I have a problem with that. I do not believe deciding who does not get to be human is up to you. Or me, or any other human being. And frankly, it seems in the same area of rhetoric as Michael Tee calling people gusanos for being enemies of "the Revolution". It is a dehumanizing tactic so the killing or abuse of those people can be justified.

[sirs]

To Js, my apologies for the over-the-top response

To Prince, I don't think I EVER indicated that everyone was to follow my lead in calling a terrorist who purposely kills women & chilrent an animal.  And for you to imply I shouldn't is pretty arrogant on your part

[gipper]

"Brother, I love ya!" shouted the artilleryman as his round square hit an enemy soldier, shredding him apart but not killing him, yet, or for two more agonizing weeks. "Kumbaya."

[_JS]

No problem Sirs. It is a heated subject.

[Universe Prince]

To Prince, I don't think I EVER indicated that everyone was to follow my lead in calling a terrorist who purposely kills women & chilrent an animal.  And for you to imply I shouldn't is pretty arrogant on your part

To imply that you shouldn't dehumanize other people is arrogant on my part? Perhaps, but I don't see how I can express a disagreement on that issue without that implication being there. Does that mean my disagreement is arrogant? I hope not.

[Plane]

Some of the captives we have are well identified as leaders of Al Quieda , thus we have a reasonable certainty that these guys were in on plans of destruction tipical of Al Queida.

That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.

No I am pretty sure that we have actually  captured some persons of known rank who we actually knew had knoledge of Al Queda resorces , personell and plans. Extracting this information produces a near certainty of stopping plans , a near certanty of saveing lives.

[sirs]

I don't think I EVER indicated that everyone was to follow my lead in calling a terrorist who purposely kills women & children an animal.  And for you to imply I shouldn't is pretty arrogant on your part

To imply that you shouldn't dehumanize other people is arrogant on my part? Perhaps, but I don't see how I can express a disagreement on that issue without that implication being there. Does that mean my disagreement is arrogant?

No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical

[gipper]

Is torturing someone qualitatively different from inflicting "normal course" damage in war? If so, why? Please elaborate.

[Universe Prince]

No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical

Oh. Well, um, I didn't say you required others to do that. And I don't see where I implied that in what I said. And for the record, I did not infer that either.

[sirs]

No, it really means your inferrence that I require others to follow suit in calling terrorists animals, is arrogant & egotistical

Oh. Well, um, I didn't say you required others to do that. And I don't see where I implied that in what I said. And for the record, I did not infer that either.

For the record, "I do not believe deciding who does not get to be human is up to you"  sure appears so. 

[Universe Prince]

That is not the sort of certainty Gipper was talking about. He said specifically "a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation". Again, such certainty only exists hypothetically. For torture in the real world, rather than the hypothetical world, such certainty is nowhere to be found.

No I am pretty sure that we have actually  captured some persons of known rank who we actually knew had knoledge of Al Queda resorces , personell and plans. Extracting this information produces a near certainty of stopping plans , a near certanty of saveing lives.

You're not getting it. The problem is not the idea that we might know for certain that someone is a terrorist or has information about terrorist plans. The problem is the idea that we could know with certainty that torture is going to cause the terrorist/prisoner to divulge honestly plans for terrorism. Gipper wants to claim the hypothetical certainty, but that certainty does not exist in reality. One might as well claim a hypothetical certainty that the prisoner will convert to Unitarianism. Yeah, it's possible, but not something we can count as a certainty in reality.