On Apr 22, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Roger Howard wrote: > If that's how I was taken, then I was very unclear. > > Torture does *not* have a place, which is why I didn't > say torture. I said interrogation, and I meant what I said - that > interrogation can be proper, but it may not give us the answers we > want and > we have to accept that without moving on to more extreme, uhh > "enhanced", > forms.
Here is the context. > Sure, the yahoos always come back with their "24" based scenarios - > it's highly attractive thinking, much as all the quick-fix ideas > popular in pretty much every discussion of complex problems... like, > say, the economy. > > But the reality is that interrogation has its place; the question is > about the extent to which it can be useful. But we, not just Americans > I suspect, want simple, pat, answers, and direct "solutions" to any > problem. Got a bad guy who must know something useful? Well, then > there's gotta be a way to get that information out of his brain, > right? I can see how you meant to contrast "interrogation" with the techniques depicted on the TV show but since the TV show is a place where they use the word "interrogation" to mean brutalizing people it was confusing. - God must have loved the people in power, for he made them so much like their own image of him. -Kenneth Patchen _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
