ST Alpha - "I don't see how that's relevant. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 155

In response to "Plus, the terrorist group claimed responsiblity. There's no one here that believes he acted alone, right? -- nm" by Name Withheld By Request

I don't see how that's relevant. -- nm

Posted by Reagen (aka Reagen) Dec 31 '09, 10:05

(No message)

Responses:

Because of the legal ramifications of "enemy combatants", no? - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:10 24
- just because AQ claims responsibility doesn't mean they're telling the truth. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:17 7
  - Wanna put odds on it? Yes, there's a chance that they weren't, but there was also a chance on 9/11 that they didn't do it either, but.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:20 6
    - and no, I don't think we can assume it's AQ at this point. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:25
    - Right, but it can't be used as any kind of evidence, can it? -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:24
    - there's a world of difference between (at least) 19 men acting in concert, and one man's failed attack. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:24 3
      - Does AQ have a history of claiming attacks that aren't theirs? I haven't heard much of one. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:29 2
        
        I'm not saying it's not AQ. just that because AQ might be involved doesn't mean that it's a nefarious terrorist masterstroke. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:50 1
        
        I'm not saying Blofled's stroking his cat while saying, "Release the Fruit of the Loom bomber on them," but if AQ's involved then by default, it's... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:55
- the relevant thing here to me is what is no Mirandizing him going to do? He's going to answer the question or he's not. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:12 15
  - I hate that we have to protect people against their own idiocy, but I accept it as necessary. - mafic Dec 31, 10:19 9
    - No one disputes that he could sit there mum and that's that. But do you really believe that a military interrogater wouldn't have a better chance.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:22 8
      - such as...? -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:23 7
        
        Here's the list on Wiki as pulled from the field manual: -- (link) - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:37 2
        
        other than the last two, I can't see why any of those couldn't be used in normal interrogation. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:40 1 1
        
        At least half the list is rendered ineffective with a lawyer present. At least half. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:43
        
        well, there's the hot-coat-hanger-to-the-testes... i think that one's still legal. -- nm - TFox Dec 31, 10:24 3
        
        Interrogating someone in the middle of the night just 'cause. I can't imagine the FBI can do that regularly. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:31 2
        
        Why not? FBI agents only work 8-5? - Will Hunting Dec 31, 10:34 1
        
        I'm thinking the lawyer present aspect probably has rules to prevent "abuse" by the legal agency. Could be wrong. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:35
  - You treat him like a criminal, provide a lawyer, and the odds of getting information on the wider organization greatly diminishes. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:15 4
    - or maybe his lawyer advises him to spill his guts for a better deal. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:17
    - PS: There's no guarantee that he'll ever talk, but the chances are substantially better. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:16 2
      - I seriously don't understand how. *are* we talking about torture here? -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:18 1
        
        There's plenty of legal and accepted techiniques that can/are used outside of torture. The time of day when the interrogation takes place for example -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:25

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.