• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Your stance on "Truth Drugs" being used on Terrorist Prisnors

T

Texmaster

Banned
I say use em without batting an eye. Torture would never work anyway. But the threats to thousands of lives nowadays make it more than necessary IMO.
 
in principle I am for them, but in practice I would have to oppose them, and here's why. Say we go to war and a government captures a few of our commandos, then they decide to use truth serum to extract information that could jeopardize the lives of countless soldiers, and Americans. Also would the truth serum apply to domestic terrorists as well? American citizens? what is the definition of the term terrorist? Could it not be misconstrued to be used on say a "hacker" someone who hacks websites, steals information, what about someone who commits a violent crime, should we use it on him to determine if he knows about anything else that we can get him or someone else for? Where do you draw the line? if there isn't a definite line it opens the door for a potential snowball effect IMO
 
Originally posted by: DaiShan
in principle I am for them, but in practice I would have to oppose them, and here's why. Say we go to war and a government captures a few of our commandos, then they decide to use truth serum to extract information that could jeopardize the lives of countless soldiers, and Americans. Also would the truth serum apply to domestic terrorists as well? American citizens? what is the definition of the term terrorist? Could it not be misconstrued to be used on say a "hacker" someone who hacks websites, steals information, what about someone who commits a violent crime, should we use it on him to determine if he knows about anything else that we can get him or someone else for? Where do you draw the line? if there isn't a definite line it opens the door for a potential snowball effect IMO
Click to expand...


I'm a 100% for using truth serum on the terrorists. You have to figure these people will die at any cost to bring our government down - and pose a huge potential threat to the national security of every American. As far as using truth serum in other instances, that's going to have to be something for the courts to decide. Based on severity of the offense, we could issue a dose of the truth serum. There's a lot of sick fuqers out there today - and if someone doesn't catch them we're all going to pay.


 
Is there a chance of failure? If you have a 100% chance of it working then I don't really see a problem, unless it has nasty side effects.
If however it doesn't work 100% of the time, you cannot trust the information you get from it, and even if it's true 99% of the time I oppose it, for the simple reason that Bin Laden will pick his most trusted people from those who are resistant against it, and you still won't be able to get the information you need.
Sure, you will get the truth most of the time, but not when and where it matters.
 
Actually, while it does generate some false information, it still gives you some good leads. As for it not working on "hardened" al-Qaeda, I think you're wrong about that. The Israeli are very good at what they do and have manage to break so very committed people. Shaking in combination with other stuff is supposed to be working very well for them.

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Is there a chance of failure? If you have a 100% chance of it working then I don't really see a problem, unless it has nasty side effects.
If however it doesn't work 100% of the time, you cannot trust the information you get from it, and even if it's true 99% of the time I oppose it, for the simple reason that Bin Laden will pick his most trusted people from those who are resistant against it, and you still won't be able to get the information you need.
Sure, you will get the truth most of the time, but not when and where it matters.
Click to expand...

 
I would support it if there was compelling evidence that someone knew something that could save lives. For example- convicted spies or senior members of terrorist groups. I think the goverment should have to go before a judge and present evidence just like they do for search warrants, wire taps, etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it is against the Geneva convention to use drugs on POW's.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
I would support it if there was compelling evidence that someone knew something that could save lives. For example- convicted spies or senior members of terrorist groups. I think the goverment should have to go before a judge and present evidence just like they do for search warrants, wire taps, etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it is against the Geneva convention to use drugs on POW's.
Click to expand...

My thinking is along the lines of the top aid to Bin Laden recently caught in Pakistan.
 
Originally posted by: DaiShan
in principle I am for them, but in practice I would have to oppose them, and here's why. Say we go to war and a government captures a few of our commandos, then they decide to use truth serum to extract information that could jeopardize the lives of countless soldiers, and Americans. Also would the truth serum apply to domestic terrorists as well? American citizens? what is the definition of the term terrorist? Could it not be misconstrued to be used on say a "hacker" someone who hacks websites, steals information, what about someone who commits a violent crime, should we use it on him to determine if he knows about anything else that we can get him or someone else for? Where do you draw the line? if there isn't a definite line it opens the door for a potential snowball effect IMO
Click to expand...

Well, two things here.

1) People assume there are truth drugs. Well... kinda. Things don't work that way, or you would see wider use of them. You might get something and maybe not.

2) If the drugs worked, do you not think another country would use them? There is no MAD policy on drugs, and remember, the Constitution does not apply outside the US. In other words another country can do as it pleases.

To answer the question, yes, try it. Someone might get a helluva hangover, but that's about it.
 
what is the definition of the term terrorist?
Click to expand...

According to the legislation passed after 9-11, a "terrorist" is someone who breaks the laws of the federal government or of any state. Just about anyone can be declared a terrorist.
 
Well, and that's what not allowed for sure according to the Geneva convention. I'm pretty sure you can break a lot of people by using Eichmann's methods too, but then you break just about every rule on human rights available.
The problem is what is or isn't allowed. As became clear from 9/11, most of them didn't know what would happen till the moment it did happen, as they operated on a 'need to know' basis. The few you cannot break are the ones with the information you need, the other don't even hear where they have to go till the time arrives.

Originally posted by: hammer09
Actually, while it does generate some false information, it still gives you some good leads. As for it not working on "hardened" al-Qaeda, I think you're wrong about that. The Israeli are very good at what they do and have manage to break so very committed people. Shaking in combination with other stuff is supposed to be working very well for them.

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Is there a chance of failure? If you have a 100% chance of it working then I don't really see a problem, unless it has nasty side effects.
If however it doesn't work 100% of the time, you cannot trust the information you get from it, and even if it's true 99% of the time I oppose it, for the simple reason that Bin Laden will pick his most trusted people from those who are resistant against it, and you still won't be able to get the information you need.
Sure, you will get the truth most of the time, but not when and where it matters.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
i agree that truth drugs should be used, i wonder how reliable they are though. im sure it's not like the movies.

im not really worried about what would happen if one of our soldiers got captured, unless it's a high level person, the soldier will probably know very little of anything else besides what he should be doing.
 
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the legislation passed after 9-11, a "terrorist" is someone who breaks the laws of the federal government or of any state. Just about anyone can be declared a terrorist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is the definition of domestic terrorism taken right out of the Patriots Act:

5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;
``(B) appear to be intended--
``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population;
``(ii) to influence the policy of a government
by intimidation or coercion; or
``(iii) to affect the conduct of a government
by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
and
``(C) occur primarily within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.''

The parts are inclusive. It would hardly apply to "almost anyone".
 
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;

are parts A,B,C inclusive? of each other? if just one of these has to be met, part A can apply to just about any common criminal.
part B, part i can also apply to almost any criminal also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top