Hardcore

[Acolyte]

Actually, there is still a loss of sympathy; it's counterbalanced by what we've seen happen to the guy over the course of the movie thus far.

I didn't think so. For the reasons you mentioned both Doug and Tess are sympathetic at this point, while the chauffeur is clearly a lying, weasely slimeball who doesn't particularly care if Tess dies. It was shocking, yes, but I couldn't help but feel he deserved it.

[Tbolt]

I also have to agree with what Wanderwolf has said as well. The examples he cites definitely show a lack of long term benefits to torture.

In the cinematic environment, there is definitely a "field expediency" to it.

I honestly don't know enough about the subject to say which side is genuinely correct.

The key to effective torture, as with any interrogation, is establishing a rapport with the subject. If you yell and scream at him, you will only make him fearful or angry, and will have to work five times as hard to get anywhere. Approach it coldly, and you will have to work twice as hard.

Approach it gently, apologizing, telling him how much you hate to do this, and how much better it would be if he just did what he was told so you could stop. He will crumble like the walls of Jericho before the Lord's army. His own pain is only so effective, after all. Combined with yours, it becomes an unbearable burden.

Kind of reminds me of effective means of debate, the more emotion one puts into one's argument, the less valid it appears, even if one makes good points. Those points become difficult to see when wiping the spittle off one's face =^^=

Although, false sympathy can also be irritating as well...

But I'm thinking of debate, not interrogation, two different scenarios.


As far as all this is concerned. The writer has painted the characters into a corner. They need to get the information and they need it fast. Perhaps the scenario does not have the time necessary to set up a "good cop / bad cop" scene.

I guess we just have to wait and see how the rest of this pans out.

[Sciguy]

There is another preconcived view:

Nip wasn't torturing the bastard. He was driving home how far he was willing to go, with one stright act.




And for the record, I full well beleave Kerry would have buckled under torture. Hell, he still doesn't get that what he said about the troops, when he got back from Nam, killed any real chance for him to take the presadency in a stright election.

Let's face it. The culture is ashamed for how we treated the Nam Vets. Kerry went before a comittie and threw gas on that fire. He spit on the troops with his testamony.

He later protests the war, and he even threw Some other solder's metals over the walls of the White house.

He should have checked the culture for goodness sake. The American culture at large now views the treatment of the vets as shame and anyone who treated them as such as a villian.

Sorry. Went off topic.

The guy was a opertunist and pragmatic. If he beleaved it would benafit him, he would have signed aginst the other troops, if the Veitcong got their hands on him.

[Calbeck]

Be fair, Calbeck, this is an action movie. You know the terrorist character will crack now that this "Geneva Convention" bushwah is out of the way.

Not at all. My point is that the concept that "torture does not work" is based on a number of assumptions, none of which are particularly applicable to the given situation. If this were playing out in real life as opposed to an action flick, the results would likely be the same.

In reality, by this point, the torture target (the terrorist) has the idea that he's going to die anyway. Fast, slow, in-between... he's in the hands of someone who's stated outright that he's worthless except for the information. The guy just burned out his eye with a cigarette, after all, then as much as said he considers him just a piece of meat. Wouldn't you start making preparations for death right then and there?

Actually, were I in the terrorist's shoes, I would be considering how to commit suicide at the first opportunity. If I could not figure out a way to achieve that, and I were given the choice between a long and nasty death or a short painless one, I MIGHT opt to play for time and go with the long method, assuming I had faith in myself to hold out long enough until I died.

The problem with that, is that few people really DO understand what pain does to you until it's inflicted. It's easy to play at bravery until your big left toe is crushed with a ball peen hammer. I fully expect that, once my toe was crushed, I would NOT be willing to take "the long road", and would tell my captor anything he wanted to hear. I would also have to take into account that my information, in this case, has a time limited value...if I try to lie, and my comrades succeed in their mission as a result, I can look forward to my toe being only the beginning of a long, slow demise.

All in all, I'd rather be honest and take the bullet to the back of the head, bearing in mind that I MIGHT even live long enough for US authorities to take me out of the hands of this madfox in order to turn states' evidence.

This is why I linked to the Vietnam veterans: They truly believed they were going to die. They were downright certain that the Viet Cong were going to kill them if they didn't do what they were told. And they didn't do it.

Several major differences: first, the NVA and VC did not have a habit of killing prisoners --- they were too valuable to the propaganda mill. When prisoners were executed, it was commonly by firing squad or hanging --- not by torture. Any "confessions" wrung out of prisoners were televised in the US, ensuring social stigma (and probable military charges) for the prisoner if he ever got back to the US.

Compare this to the fact that Mr. Tod has one and only one use for the terrorist: to get information to stop an imminent attack. And the terrorist knows this. If the terrorist gives in at this point, he will have a scar on his eye but no evidence will exist that he betrayed his comrades. He will have a chance to go home again without stigma, or at worst be moved to Gitmo. If he does NOT give in, then he faces whatever end Mr. Tod may devise, and it is not likely to be as merciful as a bullet to the head.

So your captive starts crying, bawling, jabbering prayers in Arabic because he's rather understandably scared out of his mind. Applying more pain at this point will get you nowhere, Calbeck.

This is only applicable in the event that the captive believes that nothing he says will prevent his continued torture or execution. If Mr. Tod's captive knows anything about what he is being asked, then he has a window for survival. And pain can provide an excellent motivator for a man to stop himself from crying, bawling, or jabbering prayers in any given language. The brain does not "shut down" until the individual passes out entirely.

Calbeck, think this through: If he honestly believes he's going to be killed either way, why does he talk?

You must not be reading the entirety of what I'm writing. I haven't suggested once that the terrorist will be killed "either way". There are three possible results:

1) Terrorist talks, gives accurate information, plot is foiled. Terrorist is turned over to authorities and survives (most likely being given the option to turn states' evidence in any legal case following).

2) Terrorist talks, gives inaccurate information, plot goes off as planned. Terrorist dies very nastily over the period of most of a day.

3) Terrorist refuses to talk. Mr. Tod has no time to conduct a lengthy interrogation and no desire to allow him to survive to make it to US authorities. Terrorist is either summarily killed, or killed nastily via a manner quickly done (perhaps drawing and quartering...which would allow for a last chance for the terrorist to speak before the Humvee's tires squeal).

Hence, he talks to avoid a nasty death.

"Nothing focuses the mind so wonderfully as knowing you are to be hanged in the morning", after all, and he has no reason to believe that Nip won't kill him once his usefulness is ended.

Except that he remains valuable to any case that follows, as a direct witness to the actions of his comrades. Turning states' evidence will ensure his survival.

In any event, Nip has only so much time to devote to this, and the terrorist likely knows it. Heck, he's been told from the start that, if captured, he'll be subjected to long and excruciating tortures before we kill him.

If he actually did, he wouldn't have bothered citing the Geneva Convention in the first place. It's more likely that he is fully aware of US civil rights, of the controversy concerning US treatment of prisoners, and is willing and able to exploit that knowledge. The problem with this strategy is that Nip is operating independently.

<sigh> Calbeck, the last time the U.S.A. sent in untrained interrogators, it gave us Abu Ghraib. Worse, that's all it gave us. All that mess, all those injured prisoners, all those lewd photos, and we got zilch out of it. (You can check the Schlesinger report if you don't believe me.)

And again, the situation at Abu Gharib was not comparable to the given situation. Would you like me to, again, itemize the differences?

The key to effective torture, as with any interrogation, is establishing a rapport with the subject. If you yell and scream at him, you will only make him fearful or angry, and will have to work five times as hard to get anywhere.

Which, under the given time constraints, is in fact the only option. That is why Nip IS working five times as hard, taking the gloves off from the very beginning. If there were any time to establish any sort of rapport, the cigarette in the eye would not have been necessary.

Approach it gently, apologizing, telling him how much you hate to do this, and how much better it would be if he just did what he was told so you could stop. He will crumble like the walls of Jericho before the Lord's army. His own pain is only so effective, after all. Combined with yours, it becomes an unbearable burden.

This makes the mistake of assuming the terrorist cares about your burden. Instead, he is likely to consider it a weakness to be exploited, whether he is right or wrong in assuming so.

Leniency in punishment, in the Arab/Muslim world, is commonly assumed to be a "Western failing". That is why Saudi Arabia, a nation we like to think is civilized, continues to maintain a religious police which is authorized to behead people, cut off hands, and stone people to death. These punishments are meted out for consuming alcohol on holy days, not turning out for public prayers, or thefts which in the West would be considered misdemeanors.

[Calbeck]

I doubt they had the same tolerance for pain a dedicated suicide ready soldier is going to have.

It's easy to be ready to die. It's not easy to endure pain, especially when you can expect a lot more of it before you have a chance to die. In all cases of these suicidal types, they expect to be dead instantly should they succeed. No lingering pain, just a direct translation to the afterlife in the blink of an eye.

Therein lies the difference.

[T.s.a.o]

2) Terrorist talks, gives inaccurate information, plot goes off as planned. Terrorist dies very nastily over the period of most of a day.

3) Terrorist refuses to talk. Mr. Tod has no time to conduct a lengthy interrogation and no desire to allow him to survive to make it to US authorities. Terrorist is either summarily killed, or killed nastily via a manner quickly done (perhaps drawing and quartering...which would allow for a last chance for the terrorist to speak before the Humvee's tires squeal).

NO NO NO "Vengance is mine, says the Lord," even to the torturers\---however I'm not at a low standard to threaten or judge anybody

[Wanderwolf]

Be fair, Calbeck, this is an action movie. You know the terrorist character will crack now that this "Geneva Convention" bushwah is out of the way.

Not at all. My point is that the concept that "torture does not work" is based on a number of assumptions, none of which are particularly applicable to the given situation. If this were playing out in real life as opposed to an action flick, the results would likely be the same.

I can only agree insofar as what we've seen... namely, the terrorist gibbering in pain and fear. Not a terribly helpful thing for him to be babbling, "Ohmyeyemyeyemyeye..."

In reality, by this point, the torture target (the terrorist) has the idea that he's going to die anyway. Fast, slow, in-between... he's in the hands of someone who's stated outright that he's worthless except for the information. The guy just burned out his eye with a cigarette, after all, then as much as said he considers him just a piece of meat. Wouldn't you start making preparations for death right then and there?

Actually, were I in the terrorist's shoes, I would be considering how to commit suicide at the first opportunity. If I could not figure out a way to achieve that, and I were given the choice between a long and nasty death or a short painless one, I MIGHT opt to play for time and go with the long method, assuming I had faith in myself to hold out long enough until I died.

The problem with that, is that few people really DO understand what pain does to you until it's inflicted. It's easy to play at bravery until your big left toe is crushed with a ball peen hammer. I fully expect that, once my toe was crushed, I would NOT be willing to take "the long road", and would tell my captor anything he wanted to hear. I would also have to take into account that my information, in this case, has a time limited value...if I try to lie, and my comrades succeed in their mission as a result, I can look forward to my toe being only the beginning of a long, slow demise.

All in all, I'd rather be honest and take the bullet to the back of the head, bearing in mind that I MIGHT even live long enough for US authorities to take me out of the hands of this madfox in order to turn states' evidence.

I dunno, Calbeck. Your captor has personally told you that you're nothing but meat to him, and meat doesn't generally live long enough to appeal the decision of the butcher.

This is why I linked to the Vietnam veterans: They truly believed they were going to die. They were downright certain that the Viet Cong were going to kill them if they didn't do what they were told. And they didn't do it.

Several major differences: first, the NVA and VC did not have a habit of killing prisoners --- they were too valuable to the propaganda mill. When prisoners were executed, it was commonly by firing squad or hanging --- not by torture. Any "confessions" wrung out of prisoners were televised in the US, ensuring social stigma (and probable military charges) for the prisoner if he ever got back to the US.

<look askance> Calbeck, read over what I just said: "Believed they were going to die". What may or may not happen doesn't matter as much as what you're mortally certain will happen. As far as the soldiers in Vietnam were aware, they were going to be killed. They weren't sitting in front of the TV set at home, watching the propaganda play out. They were sitting in a cold cement room, being beaten to within an inch of their lives.

Compare this to the fact that Mr. Tod has one and only one use for the terrorist: to get information to stop an imminent attack. And the terrorist knows this. If the terrorist gives in at this point, he will have a scar on his eye but no evidence will exist that he betrayed his comrades. He will have a chance to go home again without stigma, or at worst be moved to Gitmo. If he does NOT give in, then he faces whatever end Mr. Tod may devise, and it is not likely to be as merciful as a bullet to the head.

<bemused look> Really? I must've missed the nuances. Let me check.

Let me clear y'all up on somethin'... This ain't Gitmo. There ain't no white-gloved soldier waiting to serve you chicken tandoori after handing you your shiny new copy of the Koran, while some ACLU buttwipe makes sure that nobody hurts your feelings. There's just you, me and this desert. And I couldn't give a crap on a cracker about the Geneva Convention-- even if it applied to turds like you in the first place. You and your ratbag friends are plotting to kill thousands of innocents so you can score a piece in the hereafter. You are nothing but meat to me. You got two choices. Talk now... or spend a lot of time screaming first. Then talk anyway. Where'd they go with the WMD?

<sarcasm> Silly me. It's so obvious Nip's character is going to turn him over to the authorities after he talks... </sarcasm>

So your captive starts crying, bawling, jabbering prayers in Arabic because he's rather understandably scared out of his mind. Applying more pain at this point will get you nowhere, Calbeck.

This is only applicable in the event that the captive believes that nothing he says will prevent his continued torture or execution. If Mr. Tod's captive knows anything about what he is being asked, then he has a window for survival. And pain can provide an excellent motivator for a man to stop himself from crying, bawling, or jabbering prayers in any given language. The brain does not "shut down" until the individual passes out entirely.

It's called "shock" and it's called "despair", Calbeck. Again, this is an action movie: You know the terrorist character will crack and talk. In reality, you'd have to wait around until he stopped going into shock, then start again from the questioning.

Calbeck, think this through: If he honestly believes he's going to be killed either way, why does he talk?

You must not be reading the entirety of what I'm writing. I haven't suggested once that the terrorist will be killed "either way". There are three possible results:

1) Terrorist talks, gives accurate information, plot is foiled. Terrorist is turned over to authorities and survives (most likely being given the option to turn states' evidence in any legal case following).

2) Terrorist talks, gives inaccurate information, plot goes off as planned. Terrorist dies very nastily over the period of most of a day.

3) Terrorist refuses to talk. Mr. Tod has no time to conduct a lengthy interrogation and no desire to allow him to survive to make it to US authorities. Terrorist is either summarily killed, or killed nastily via a manner quickly done (perhaps drawing and quartering...which would allow for a last chance for the terrorist to speak before the Humvee's tires squeal).

Hence, he talks to avoid a nasty death.

<shrug> If Nip had promised him anything, I might agree. In the part we're getting to see, he's promising him nothing, and emphasizing that the man is "meat" to him. As far as the terrorist is aware, all roads lead to the end you placed in 3), with no chance at anything else. "No desire to allow him to survive to make it to US authorities" is about what he's seeing... and again, Calbeck, if you believe you're going to be killed either way, why would you talk?

"Nothing focuses the mind so wonderfully as knowing you are to be hanged in the morning", after all, and he has no reason to believe that Nip won't kill him once his usefulness is ended.

Except that he remains valuable to any case that follows, as a direct witness to the actions of his comrades. Turning states' evidence will ensure his survival.

Aaaand you just blew your "go home without stigma" case. <points back to where you said that>

In any event, Nip has only so much time to devote to this, and the terrorist likely knows it. Heck, he's been told from the start that, if captured, he'll be subjected to long and excruciating tortures before we kill him.

If he actually did, he wouldn't have bothered citing the Geneva Convention in the first place. It's more likely that he is fully aware of US civil rights, of the controversy concerning US treatment of prisoners, and is willing and able to exploit that knowledge. The problem with this strategy is that Nip is operating independently.

It's an action movie, remember. You learn to gloss over the parts written by people who don't study terrorists and their organizations...

<sigh> Calbeck, the last time the U.S.A. sent in untrained interrogators, it gave us Abu Ghraib. Worse, that's all it gave us. All that mess, all those injured prisoners, all those lewd photos, and we got zilch out of it. (You can check the Schlesinger report if you don't believe me.)

And again, the situation at Abu Gharib was not comparable to the given situation. Would you like me to, again, itemize the differences?

I'll first itemize the similarities:

1. Untrained interrogators.

2. Prisoners with no hope of legal recourse that they knew of.

3. Interrogators with an emotional investment in making their subjects suffer.

4. Pain and suffering, sloppily applied.

Go ahead, Calbeck.

The key to effective torture, as with any interrogation, is establishing a rapport with the subject. If you yell and scream at him, you will only make him fearful or angry, and will have to work five times as hard to get anywhere.

Which, under the given time constraints, is in fact the only option. That is why Nip IS working five times as hard, taking the gloves off from the very beginning. If there were any time to establish any sort of rapport, the cigarette in the eye would not have been necessary.

As I told RH, the reason torture survives is because it's fun. When you truly hate someone, there's nothing so satisfying as breaking their bones, shredding their flesh and charring their extremities while listening to the sweet music of their screams.

It's quite true there's no time to establish rapport. That's why you look for clues instead of just torturing the guy. Check the cab of the truck for receipts, hotel keys, fast food boxes. Check his driver's license to find the address he gave. It's faster, easier and quieter.

Approach it gently, apologizing, telling him how much you hate to do this, and how much better it would be if he just did what he was told so you could stop. He will crumble like the walls of Jericho before the Lord's army. His own pain is only so effective, after all. Combined with yours, it becomes an unbearable burden.

This makes the mistake of assuming the terrorist cares about your burden. Instead, he is likely to consider it a weakness to be exploited, whether he is right or wrong in assuming so.

<sad smile> Calbeck, it doesn't matter whether he cares when you start. By acting softly, you remove the target he would rail against. That leaves him nothing but his own pain, and yours, whether yours is affected or not. Eventually, the little child inside him is willing to believe, at least for an instant, that you really don't want to do this. That you'll stop if he'll just be a good boy and tell you what you want to know. That it will all stop, and he won't be hurting any more if he just does as he's told. Because, while telling him how sorry you are, how much you hate to do this... you do it anyway.

Leniency in punishment, in the Arab/Muslim world, is commonly assumed to be a "Western failing". That is why Saudi Arabia, a nation we like to think is civilized, continues to maintain a religious police which is authorized to behead people, cut off hands, and stone people to death. These punishments are meted out for consuming alcohol on holy days, not turning out for public prayers, or thefts which in the West would be considered misdemeanors.

Yeah, the 1001 Arabian Nights is a good book. It's not an accurate representation of either Shari'a (Muslim Law) or the laws of Saudi Arabia, however... and no, the two are not the same.

Under Muslim law, for instance (and taking the most popular item first), stealing is not neccessarily punishable by amputation. If you remember the scene in Aladdin when the guard almost chops Jasmine's hand off for stealing an apple, you've spotted something that made the Muslims in the audience wince (as evidenced by their letter-writing campaign to Disney). Jasmine, as they pointed out, appears to be a poor street urchin, stealing an apple. Under Shari'a, someone who steals from hardship does not have their hand amputated; instead, they are thoroughly investigated to discover why they needed to steal, and supported by the community. But that doesn't give Aladdin a chance for a dramatic rescue.

Oh, and amputation is for repeat offenders: Under Shari'a, it's only for those caught stealing for the third time, in cases where hardship does not apply. A case in point in Nigeria was a well-off teenager who persisted in stealing cattle.

As for drinking on a holy day, I'm surprised... mostly about the drinking, since Muslim law prohibits alcohol on all days. (You can't even take beer into Kuwait, for instance. Talk about a dry and dusty desert...) But then, Saudi Arabia doesn't follow Muslim law anyway, so I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised.

For the others, I can't even find a reference. Care to cite, so that I may be properly educated?

Yours truly,

The fact-finding,

Wanderer

[IronFox]

Just my two cents worth:

Those who say that violence is not the answer lack the imagination to apply it properly.

[EdBecerra]

Just my two cents worth:

Those who say that violence is not the answer lack the imagination to apply it properly.

I'm rather fond of Howard Tayler's take on the subject.

Rule 27. Don't be afraid to be the first to resort to violence.

Rule 30. A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

Rule 34. If you’re leaving scorch marks...you need a bigger gun.

And my personal favorite:

Rule 37. There is no "overkill". There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload."

[RHJunior]

Wanderwulf, you're not engaging in much more than wishful thinking.

Torture, like terrorism, works. That is the reason both are still used. Both use fear and pain to get a desired reaction-- torture to obtain loosened tongues, terror to weaken morale and resolve.

The condemnation in them does not lie in their mythical "ineffectiveness."

There are many things that are quite effective but are not, or should not, be done. Live puppies make good shark bait, and you can light up the back yard quite effectively by setting your neighbor's hair on fire....but we don't do these things, not because they're "ineffective" but because they're WRONG.

We do not use torture, physical pain and injury, even on terrorists because, under typical circumstances, we regard the moral balance--- the consequences of the deed versus the goal intended--- as unacceptable.

This is not "typical circumstances."

<I>Nip's character is in a situation where the consequences of NOT using pain and terror on this prisoner would be a thousand times more evil than actually using it.</i> This is not a maybe. This is not a hypothetical. This is not questionable. This is confirmed, by the chemical canisters and dead animals in the pit, by the bulletholes in their vehicles, by his partner's dead body in the desert, by the evidence and actions of the prisoner they've taken. Their prisoner knows where the terrorists took the weapon. If Nip and the soldiers do not find out where the terrorists took the weapon, if they do not wring the information out of his flesh, <I>thousands of people WILL DIE.</i>

Nip is in a position where he cannot afford the price of his high ideals.

I'm certain the typical hollywood impression is that it's more manly to seize a villain by the shirtcollar, bludgeon him with your fists, and scream "where have you taken <insert name of heroe's loved one here>?" In his face.

It might be more machismo. But it's not going to save any lives.

[Wanderwolf]

Wanderwulf, you're not engaging in much more than wishful thinking.

If you want to ignore the lessons of the Inquisition, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, RH, you go right ahead. I'll trust people who know what they're talking about (Vietnam vets, for example) over people who don't, any day of the year. And they, and their history, say that torture is not an effective means of information extraction.

Torture, like terrorism, works. That is the reason both are still used. Both use fear and pain to get a desired reaction-- torture to obtain loosened tongues, terror to weaken morale and resolve.

The tortures at Abu Ghraib netted us nothing. In what way did they work?

The destruction of the World Trade Center and half the Pentagon was supposed to make us lie down and take it. How did that work?

The torture of our soldiers in Vietnam was supposed to make them confess to "war crimes" that we were supposedly committing. How well did that work?

Palestinian suicide bombings are supposed to make the Israelis leave Palestine. How well is that working?

Sorry, RH, recent history strongly suggests you've got the wrong end of a sharp stick.

The condemnation in them does not lie in their mythical "ineffectiveness."

If you have a better source for the effectiveness of torture than those who went through it, RH, I wish you'd cite it. Somehow, though, I doubt you will... because the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines agree that it is not effective, and should not be part of our system. Deciding you know better than the people on the ground and at the front is armchair general stuff, RH. Our boys deserve to be trusted more than that. (I'd provide links, but since you never bothered to look at the last few...)

There are many things that are quite effective but are not, or should not, be done. Live puppies make good shark bait, and you can light up the back yard quite effectively by setting your neighbor's hair on fire....but we don't do these things, not because they're "ineffective" but because they're WRONG.

Actually, they're not terribly effective, either. Dead, bleeding puppies make better shark bait than live, struggling ones, and hair doesn't burn very brightly. (You can try to shock and disgust me all you want, RH. I'm friends with a Marine. You couldn't out-disgust me if you were channeling Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley at the same time.)

We do not use torture, physical pain and injury, even on terrorists because, under typical circumstances, we regard the moral balance--- the consequences of the deed versus the goal intended--- as unacceptable.

We have used torture, in recent memory, on our enemies, and it got us bupkis, RH. Need I remind you that the definition of a fanatic is someone who keeps doing the same thing when it clearly doesn't work?

This is not "typical circumstances."

<I>Nip's character is in a situation where the consequences of NOT using pain and terror on this prisoner would be a thousand times more evil than actually using it.</i> This is not a maybe. This is not a hypothetical. This is not questionable. This is confirmed, by the chemical canisters and dead animals in the pit, by the bulletholes in their vehicles, by his partner's dead body in the desert, by the evidence and actions of the prisoner they've taken. Their prisoner knows where the terrorists took the weapon. If Nip and the soldiers do not find out where the terrorists took the weapon, if they do not wring the information out of his flesh, <I>thousands of people WILL DIE.</i>

Yes, you screamed that already, remember? Now stop and try to think through that pretty red haze, RH. You beat on the terrorist, and pull out his nails, and extract teeth, and burn his tongue, and he finally gives you a location. If you have no correlative intel, RH, how do you know if he's telling the truth? Unless you have some way to double-check his story, it's the old politician joke, RH. "How do you know when a politician's lying?" "His lips're moving." With the word of one mutilated terrorist to go on, and nothing else, you're putting all your eggs in one basket, throwing it off a cliff, and praying it'll land on a mattress truck.

Our military knows better, RH. Why don't you?

Nip is in a position where he cannot afford the price of his high ideals.

That seems to have become your favorite buzzword. "Cannot afford the price of high ideals". But when it doesn't work (as at Abu Ghraib, and in Vietnam, and in Korea, and during the Inquisition), then what profit do you get from selling off those high ideals for... nothing?

I'm certain the typical hollywood impression is that it's more manly to seize a villain by the shirtcollar, bludgeon him with your fists, and scream "where have you taken <insert name of heroe's loved one here>?" In his face.

It might be more machismo. But it's not going to save any lives.

Why not? It's the same basic principle. Let's run down the list:

Violence: Check
Pain: Check
Questioning: Check

It even has the same limitations as torture: You have to have some idea of the information you're looking for, and you have to have an enemy that knows it. So you're saying, in effect, that beating and mutilating someone is only effective when drawn out over a long period of time.

Was that what you meant to say?

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Sciguy]

RH, I'm not so sure if Terrorism really works. Looks at recent events. All it does to the US these days is piss off the majoraty of us. WQe don't give into demands. And now, after 9/11, who's going to let terrorists grab a plane?


Wanderwolf, I don't think abject Himiluation is what consitutes as Torture.

Then again that view is up to Preception, as are manythings in this life. I could tickle your foot with a feather and have Amensty International all over my ass if it was done in Gitmo.

How come I haven't heard them yell louder about the kiddnappings and murders committed by said terrorist orginazations infiltrating Iraq, under the gize of insurgency?? For example, the televised beheadings.

[Rangers]

Oh, that's easy. "We can expect things like that from terrorists," they say, "because they're being forced into such actions by nazis like Bush and his evil Halliburton cronies. And the Jews. But you didn't hear us say that last bit."

Nip, by the way, isn't using torture. He's using shock. His adversary has a certain level of complacency ("They can't touch me - I've got their infidel system licked."), and Nip's knocking the foundation out from under it. He doesn't have to use prolonged torture on this weak-kneed twerp.

[JakeWasHere]

Nip, by the way, isn't using torture. He's using shock. His adversary has a certain level of complacency ("They can't touch me - I've got their infidel system licked."), and Nip's knocking the foundation out from under it.

And what makes you think that Amnesty International wouldn't bitch about THAT? Their definition of torture, I've noticed, is surprisingly broad - sleep deprivation counts as torture, apparently.

[Maxgoof]

RH, I'm not so sure if Terrorism really works.

Right! It had no effect on the governments of Spain or France, did it?

[Wanderwolf]

Wanderwolf, I don't think abject Himiluation is what consitutes as Torture.

Not usually, no. It might count as psychological abuse, perhaps... but why are you bringing it up? The word I used was "mutilation":

http://dict.die.net/mutilation/

an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

Not the same thing as "humiliation" at all.

Yours using the words he means to use,

The well-read,

Wanderer

[LoneWolf23k]

RH, I'm not so sure if Terrorism really works.

Right! It had no effect on the governments of Spain or France, did it?

Well, it works on weak-willed, cowardly governments. ...It's yet to have any effects on the government of Israel, beyond pissing them off.

[T.s.a.o]

Nip, by the way, isn't using torture. He's using shock. His adversary has a certain level of complacency ("They can't touch me - I've got their infidel system licked."), and Nip's knocking the foundation out from under it.

And what makes you think that Amnesty International wouldn't bitch about THAT? Their definition of torture, I've noticed, is surprisingly broad - sleep deprivation counts as torture, apparently.

Well, there is Harrassment, which has a better guarantee the human being questioned has a chance of coming out it more rational than before-torture works as abuse-hence the infamus vets of the BA.

[Wanderwolf]

Oh, that's easy. "We can expect things like that from terrorists," they say, "because they're being forced into such actions by nazis like Bush and his evil Halliburton cronies. And the Jews. But you didn't hear us say that last bit."

Gee, I wonder who you voted for in the last election? Besides, the answer is, "Just because the Bad Guys do it doesn't mean that we should". (And the fact is, we've never gotten any good intel out of it. Abu Ghraib wasn't our first blush, y'know...)

Nip, by the way, isn't using torture. He's using shock. His adversary has a certain level of complacency ("They can't touch me - I've got their infidel system licked."), and Nip's knocking the foundation out from under it. He doesn't have to use prolonged torture on this weak-kneed twerp.

Um, burning the cornea of someone's eye with a cigarette... as RH has pretty clearly stated Nip's character is doing here... carries the risk of permanent injury to, or loss of, the eye, depending on how hard the cigarette is pressed into the wound. That's pretty well "torture grade" injury, even before you count that Nip's promising more of the same in that last panel.

(Besides, speaking as a wolf, with a wolf's limited eyesight, any danger to the eyes wreaks merry havoc with your mind. Your mind and body know darn well how easy it is to permanently injure the eyeball; it's why more than 90% of individuals tested flinch when they so much as see something headed in the general direction of the ocular orbit.)

That said, I say again: Of course he's going to fold. This is an action movie. But from a writer's standpoint, you lose a lot less sympathy for the main character if you just slap the terrorist around to the point of a broken nose and some bleeding. (Same effect, too: So much for that "Geneva Convention" bushwah.) From a student of history's standpoint, you'd get more information by searching the shlub's truck... or am I the only one who remembers that the terrorists of the World Trade Center bombing used a rented U-Haul truck and gave their correct address? We're not dealing with rocket scientists, here, people...

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[T.s.a.o]

*style critique*
Ralph, are you sequencing the film panels this way to avoid having to get references for the actual scene? The symphathy might have worked better if you added a bit more smugness to the terrorist, because he's indulging on the concept that his work is inevitable, that no incident could stop it. Therefore the sudden apprehension he gets by Nip is too soon to start with. I would have added a panel before that characterising the radical muslim in his full arrogance. How about that? Actually Wolfie, it looks like the guy is taking the burn rather well, or the text for the scream should be louder...

*/style critique*