Ignore Terrorist Plots

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting conumdrum. A bomb is planned to go off tomorrow.....hundreds will be killed....but the information about the plot came from another source through torture. CSIS says Canada would act on that information. Opposition and Human Rights activists say that is wrong. The linked article does not specifically spell out the "imminence" of a threat but CSIS logically states that though they are opposed to torture, the protection of Canadians is paramount - regardless of the source of the information. What would YOU do?

Canada's spy agency says it would use information obtained through torture to derail a possible terrorist plot — a position critics argue will only encourage abusive interrogations.

The CSIS position is "alarming" and contravenes a federal government directive to the spy agency to shun brutal methods, said NDP public safety critic Don Davies. "CSIS appears to be trying to open the door to be able to rely on information derived from torture, and that's in violation of the policy."

CSIS has never condoned torture and finds it abhorrent, the briefing notes say. They add, however, that Canadians would not forgive the intelligence service if it completely ignored information that could have been used to investigate and prevent a terrorist attack because that tip came from a country with a suspect human rights reputation.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100912/national/csis_torture

Edited September 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[nicky10013]

Wow. What a simplistic question. Of course, it's to elicit incredibly simplistic and divisive debate.

What about a third option? That despite it being wrong, that it also never works, and there has never been a ticking clock type of situation where there has been an absolute necessity to obtain information. So, if acquiring information under physical duress almost never produces reliable information, then why, conceding the highly, highly unlikely situation you positied, would government agencies rely on information that has a high probability of not being accurate? What happens when they check out the wrong info given by an alleged terrorist and it just happens to be garbage? How much valuable time would that waste given your implausible situation?

[Keepitsimple]

Wow. What a simplistic question. Of course, it's to elicit incredibly simplistic and divisive debate.

What about a third option? That despite it being wrong, that it also never works, and there has never been a ticking clock type of situation where there has been an absolute necessity to obtain information. So, if acquiring information under physical duress almost never produces reliable information, then why, conceding the highly, highly unlikely situation you positied, would government agencies rely on information that has a high probability of not being accurate? What happens when they check out the wrong info given by an alleged terrorist and it just happens to be garbage? How much valuable time would that waste given your implausible situation?

Your "third" option is standard practise and what they do today.....because in almost every case, there IS time to validate such information through other sources.....but critics try to elicit statements from authorities that they would NEVER use information obtained by torture........and the reality is, there may very well be cases where the threat is imminent and Canadians would have to be protected - even if that threat proves to be bogus.....or do you disagree?

[nicky10013]

Your "third" option is standard practise and what they do today.....because in almost every case, there IS time to validate such information through other sources.....but critics try to elicit statements from authorities that they would NEVER use information obtained by torture........and the reality is, there may very well be cases where the threat is imminent and Canadians would have to be protected - even if that threat proves to be bogus.....or do you disagree?

Considering people under physical coercion during interrogation routinely say anything their captors want in order to make the situation stop, I don't see how any information could be viewed as any kind of reliable.

[Keepitsimple]

Considering people under physical coercion during interrogation routinely say anything their captors want in order to make the situation stop, I don't see how any information could be viewed as any kind of reliable.

So in the case of an imminent threat, you would ignore such information - because it's wrong 9 times out of 10? Think carefully - because that's what our protection agencies face many times over - is the threat credible? Is it imminent? Does it merit at least take SOME preventative action - just in case? This poll is by no means not meant to condone torture. It's simply a very real scenario in today's world. Yet you would ignore such information and let the chips fall where they may? Russian Roulette so to speak?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[jbg]

So, if acquiring information under physical duress almost never produces reliable information, then why, conceding the highly, highly unlikely situation you positied, would government agencies rely on information that has a high probability of not being accurate? What happens when they check out the wrong info given by an alleged terrorist and it just happens to be garbage? How much valuable time would that waste given your implausible situation?

Because if some small part of the information is accurate, the "real stuff" will be learned that much faster. And most of the time the information will be 80%, not 100%, garbage.

[nicky10013]

Because if some small part of the information is accurate, the "real stuff" will be learned that much faster. And most of the time the information will be 80%, not 100%, garbage.

No childish name-calling? I'm surprised.

[jbg]

No childish name-calling? I'm surprised.

Did you mean this for this thread?

[nicky10013]

Did you mean this for this thread?

Does it matter?

[punked]

How about we just get the information faster through other ways.

[jbg]

Does it matter?

Returning to the OP I gather you have a special relationship with Allah anyway.

[charter.rights]

Returning to the OP I gather you have a special relationship with Allah anyway.

Act on information but prosecute those responsible for it to the nth degree.

The Nazis did experiments on captive Jews that led to the cures and vaccines for many diseases.

We use the information gained from those human experiments to lead medical science today. Should we also deny the vaccines and cures and ignore the information to save face?

[jbg]

The Nazis did experiments on captive Jews that led to the cures and vaccines for many diseases.

We use the information gained from those human experiments to lead medical science today. Should we also deny the vaccines and cures and ignore the information to save face?

Tell me one Nazi experiment that had that kind of benefit.

[nicky10013]

Returning to the OP I gather you have a special relationship with Allah anyway.

And if I did there would be a problem with that?

[jbg]

And if I did there would be a problem with that?

No.

I'd want to learn whether Allah truly encourages the bloodthirsty actions of many of his followers and if his followers could be brought to behave in a mellower manner.

[nicky10013]

No.

I'd want to learn whether Allah truly encourages the bloodthirsty actions of many of his followers and if his followers could be brought to behave in a mellower manner.

Ah, so there would be a problem with it.

[charter.rights]

Tell me one Nazi experiment that had that kind of benefit.

Typhus and malaria for two....

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nazi-medical-experiments.html

[jbg]

Typhus and malaria for two....

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nazi-medical-experiments.html

That article does not say that the experiments on Jews yielded either a cure or immunization. I do wish to be educated on this.

[jbg]

Ah, so there would be a problem with it.

I'm not sure I follow your dense and/or irrational style of writing.

[Peter F]

Tell me one Nazi experiment that had that kind of benefit.

medical experiments regarding the effects of cold water immersion.

[Peter F]

So in the case of an imminent threat, you would ignore such information - because it's wrong 9 times out of 10? Think carefully - because that's what our protection agencies face many times over - is the threat credible? Is it imminent? Does it merit at least take SOME preventative action - just in case? This poll is by no means not meant to condone torture. It's simply a very real scenario in today's world. Yet you would ignore such information and let the chips fall where they may? Russian Roulette so to speak?

Here you are saying that the security wonks will have time to assess information to arrive at a rational course of action.

Do you suppose the process takes 20 minutes?

Because you also say:

nteresting conumdrum. A bomb is planned to go off tomorrow.....hundreds will be killed....but the information about the plot came from another source through torture.

Are you suggesting that Security wonks go arrest people with no usable evidence - none - except for the tip foriegn powers give them that they got from torture? Is our Security apparatus run by madmen?

[nicky10013]

I'm not sure I follow your dense and/or irrational style of writing.

I'm clearly not the irrational one. You were the person who stated it was alright to be a muslim, however in the next sentenc claimed all of them are bloodthirsty maniacs.

[Peter F]

...and further: The question is very dishonest.

The question teslls me to assume the existence of the bomb; That it will go off tomorrow and that hundreds will die. That is the assumption.

Then the question is asked: If I didn't know the assumption what then would I do with info derived from torture - but remember the information is accurate only that I have to act as if I didnt know the information was accurate.

Its not a conundrum - its a trap. If I don't act on the torture tip I am responsible for the deaths of hundreds. If I do act on the tip then Im a fuckin'Hero!

Therefore Torture is Good - just like Nukes!

[waldo]

...and further: The question is very dishonest.

The question teslls me to assume the existence of the bomb; That it will go off tomorrow and that hundreds will die. That is the assumption.

Then the question is asked: If I didn't know the assumption what then would I do with info derived from torture - but remember the information is accurate only that I have to act as if I didnt know the information was accurate.

Its not a conundrum - its a trap. If I don't act on the torture tip I am responsible for the deaths of hundreds. If I do act on the tip then Im a fuckin'Hero!

Therefore Torture is Good - just like Nukes!

standard Simple ton routine... a dance around a ridiculous poll narrative in a most juvenile inspired attempt to claim/suggest the, "end justifies the means". The Simple premise being that, as you glibly state, "torture is good".

[Shady]

that it also never works

This is one of the biggest lies perpetuated on the public by the anti-security crowd.