Comic Genesis Forums

Boy I like the way this is going.

Talk about your second hand smoke ...

Did he really need to put it out in the guy's eye right off the bat?

I'm not gonna comment on the "tirade" because of some issues I have with the subject matter and the fact I find it out of place for the scene.

This is a scene that ESPECIALLY does not need a political soapbox in it.

The lives of tens of thousands of people is hanging in the balance, and they have maybe a couple of hours before it's too late. Every second is either life, or death, for all those people. And dirtbag---whose life isn't worth trading for ONE of those people-- wants to drag his heels, because he doesnt take the threats of the soldiers who captured him seriously.

One eye less and he's taking them VERY seriously.

An eye for an eye? How about an eye for the lives of ten thousand children?

Fair trade, I'd think.

Eye? I thought he just singed his eyelid.

Heh, this guy is kind of like Jack Bauer, only moreso.

Namrepus221 wrote:Did he really need to put it out in the guy's eye right off the bat?

I'm not gonna comment on the "tirade" because of some issues I have with the subject matter and the fact I find it out of place for the scene.

This is a scene that ESPECIALLY does not need a political soapbox in it.

To quote "Big Ed" Deline..

"Don't tell him what you're gonna do. Just do it. The surprise alone makes it worth it."

Threatening harm, then doing it, is a lot less shocking then harming the guy and going "talk, or I'll do it again."

Yeah you might have it there.

Plus I kinda forgot that RH is doing this in skips. He might have been denying information and such and Nip finally had enough in the scene and decided to do it.

But I stand by saying the political soapbox stuff doesn't really mesh with the scene. I mean he just burned a guy's eye out with a cigarette, and now he's gonna lecture to him?

I'm sorry RH, I go to movies to escape reality, not be confronted with it.

Namrepus221 wrote:Did he really need to put it out in the guy's eye right off the bat?

Well... this is (in the context of the strip) events in a "B" action movie. I don't think Nip has to justify putting out the guy's eye, because he did no such thing. It's all movie magic.

I haven't watched "24", but from some of the stuff I've heard, it seems Kiefer Sutherland's character does this kind of thing when WMDs are in place and he's got the perp in hand.

As a writer and as a student of history, I have a problem with this method of information extraction. (As a human being and a protective uncle, I have no problem with it at all.)

As a writer, giving up a few tons of main-character sympathy can hurt your movie in the long run. This is the guy you want the audience to be rooting for, not against, remember. Showing him torturing some screaming shlub doesn't win you any points with the audience... or hasn't anyone else heard of the biopic about the Marquis de Sade?

As a student of history, torture is notoriously unreliable. Past a certain point (which is different for every subject), the subject will tell you anything, whether true or not, to stop the pain. It was proven in the Inquisition, it was proven in the American Witch Trials, it was proven in Vietnam and Korea: Torture doesn't get you reliable information. All it gets you is a few minutes of feeling all-powerful as you make your enemy scream in pain and fear, and one heck of a reaction from any other prisoners.

(Speaking as a student of first aid, you're quite right: The eye itself is undamaged at this point. All Mr. Tod has done is to scorch the eyelid painfully, which is far more effective than anything you could do to the eye itself.)

(Speaking as a student of law, Mr. Tod is quite right as well: Since he's not a member of the armed forces, the Geneva Convention has no power over him at this point. He can very properly, and within the bounds of conduct, shoot the man dead, citing his lack of any place to keep a prisoner. He'd be investigated, but eventually cleared.)

Yours in many voices,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

Um - guys - movie?

Wanderwulf, a few points:

That assertion about "unreliability" of information extracted with pain is, first of all, not backed up by any evidence whatsoever... just by assertions by artistic types with a gift for abstraction. It's just one of the things people opposed to torture repeat, so as to make their arguments against it sound more intellectual and less emotional.... a stupid mistake. If you can't argue against something on proven principle rather than abstract intellectualism, you put your moral stance on shaky ground.

Second of all, inasmuch as the assertion IS true, <I> it applies only to situations where the actual guilt of the person put to the question is in doubt.</i> Otherwise, I would contend that pain is VERY effective at getting people to cough up information. If it was not, its use would not have persisted.

Nip is not attempting to wring a confession out of the terrorist. He's not trying to "prove" the terrorist knows information. The terrorist in question is as guilty as hell, the terrorist in question knows information with a useful lifespan of <I>minutes</i> which spells the life or death of thousands of innocent people.

<I>Under those circumstances, your principles become a luxury which you cannot afford.</i> Because the PRICE of that cozy little delusion is measured in dead innocents.

Modern "progressives" can't seem to be taught even the most basic of ugly realities. One of those realities is that <I>an enemy combatant is only going to give you information out of fear.</i> Fear of authority, fear of unknowable consequences, fear of endless misery in a prison, fear of pain, fear of death. So long as he knows he has nothing to fear from you, he will hold out on you. We have blathered about "the geneva convention" for so many decades--- even when the enemy combatants in question are in violation of the convention themselves, and are thereby not even protected by it--- that our enemies no longer fear us. This has cost us dearly, in both time, and lives.

Is torture--- the administering of pain to inspire fear and loosen tongues--- immoral?

I fear I have to say, my conclusion is: <I>Not in all circumstances.</i>

first this:
http://tinyurl.com/lgwa9
http://tinyurl.com/o95a8

and on the other end:
http://tinyurl.com/gkqtt
http://tinyurl.com/g8vo9

thats my 2 farthings for the day. that's like what .5 cents? plus its outdated anyway ....

RHJunior wrote:Wanderwulf, a few points:

Since you missed mine...

RHJunior wrote:That assertion about "unreliability" of information extracted with pain is, first of all, not backed up by any evidence whatsoever... just by assertions by artistic types with a gift for abstraction. It's just one of the things people opposed to torture repeat, so as to make their arguments against it sound more intellectual and less emotional.... a stupid mistake. If you can't argue against something on proven principle rather than abstract intellectualism, you put your moral stance on shaky ground.

Well, since you missed it, I'll reiterate my point: I have no problem with this scuzzball being tortured, per se. Where the lives of innocents are concerned, my morals become considerably more flexible with regard to those putting them in danger in the first place.

Problem is, RH, the simplest defense against torture is the hardest to detect:

Talking.

It's a standard part of training for anyone expecting to undergo torture of any kind (and after what our people did at Abu Ghraib...). You can't keep from talking; they know this. So talk. Talk for hours. Tell them anything and everything you can imagine. Talk until they tell you to shut up. And lie like a mother-lovin' dog.

Cases in point:

http://www.scopesys.com/cgi-bin/bio2.cgi?bio=T028

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/19 ... t9-w98.htm

RHJunior wrote:Second of all, inasmuch as the assertion IS true, <I> it applies only to situations where the actual guilt of the person put to the question is in doubt.</i> Otherwise, I would contend that pain is VERY effective at getting people to cough up information. If it was not, its use would not have persisted.

Torture, my dear bear, is a psychological tool. It is less effective against the target than it is against the target's friends. The Inquisition, again, found that torture is an unreliable means of getting information out of someone you know is guilty (because, silly person, you wouldn't be torturing them if you thought they might be innocent). It's a wonderful way to scare the bejesus out of any other prisoners you have, but it simply isn't a reliable means of gathering intel.

What it is, is fun. There is something infinitely satisfying in hearing a hated enemy scream in agony as his fingernails are slowly ripped from their roots; hearing the snap of bones pressed beyond their endurance by a series of wedges driven into a container; seeing that light of hope in his eyes go out as he feels his body fail in stages. There is that in Man which thoroughly enjoys the inflicting of pain upon one's enemies. And that, dear bear, is why torture persists. It's not useful, no; but it's amazingly enjoyable.

Er, pardon me a moment while I tuck that part of me back in his box...

RHJunior wrote: Nip is not attempting to wring a confession out of the terrorist. He's not trying to "prove" the terrorist knows information. The terrorist in question is as guilty as hell, the terrorist in question knows information with a useful lifespan of <I>minutes</i> which spells the life or death of thousands of innocent people.

<I>Under those circumstances, your principles become a luxury which you cannot afford.</i> Because the PRICE of that cozy little delusion is measured in dead innocents.

My principles, dear bear, have nothing to do with it. I said it before, I'll keep saying it until you recognize the words: I have no problem, ethically, with Nip torturing the guy. Heck, bring out the Iron Maiden (and I don't mean the rock band), bring on the thumbscrews! Crush his feet to a tiny pulp in The Boot, mangle his hands with knives, cut off his ears in pieces! Ethically, I don't care if someone who planted a WMD to kill innocents is fed through a wood chipper while still alive and conscious.

Practically, I recognize the limits of torture. It's never provided good intel; it can't. It can get someone to talk, yes, but there's no guarantee that what they're saying is true. Unless you have correlating intel, the info you half-killed the guy to get is almost worthless.

Honestly, RH, give your villains the sense God gave little green apples. All he has to do is give Nip any possible location, and the torture stops. It doesn't even have to be the right one; it just has to be a place that Nip'll believe they'd "set us up the bomb". Then he's spared torture, and Nip goes running off on a wild goose chase while the clock keeps on ticking.

RHJunior wrote:Modern "progressives" can't seem to be taught even the most basic of ugly realities. One of those realities is that <I>an enemy combatant is only going to give you information out of fear.</i> Fear of authority, fear of unknowable consequences, fear of endless misery in a prison, fear of pain, fear of death. So long as he knows he has nothing to fear from you, he will hold out on you. We have blathered about "the geneva convention" for so many decades--- even when the enemy combatants in question are in violation of the convention themselves, and are thereby not even protected by it--- that our enemies no longer fear us. This has cost us dearly, in both time, and lives.

Actually, the Geneva Accords themselves state that violation does not abrogate protection (a good thing for us after that Agent Orange mess). As long as a nation is bound by the accords, we are required to abide by them. Even if a nation is NOT a signatory, if they agree to and apply the Accords, we have to abide by them.

Of course, none of that applies to Iraq (which didn't agree to or abide by the Accords), Afghanistan (likewise) or Al-Qaida (not a State), so I really don't know why you're bringing it up in the first place.

Oh, and our enemies fear us quite nicely, thank you. If we weren't scary, Osama bin Stupid would've tried a military assault instead of tricking his followers into suicide missions.

RHJunior wrote:Is torture--- the administering of pain to inspire fear and loosen tongues--- immoral?

I fear I have to say, my conclusion is: <I>Not in all circumstances.</i>

And I say, with our Army and our Intelligence people, that it is not a reliable means of information extraction. It's a great buzz for the torturer, but it simply isn't reliable. It wasn't reliable against Christians under Rome; it wasn't reliable against Jews under Catholicism; it wasn't reliable against Jews under Nazism; it wasn't reliable against Americans in Vietnam; it wasn't reliable against Americans in Korea; it wasn't reliable against Kurds under Saddam. So unless you have something that trumps centuries of actual application, I'm afraid you're not going to win this argument.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

There is something almost biblical about getting needled in the eye with a Camel, but I regress.

Thing is, what is "Torture" anymore? Listening to Amnesty International, some of the most non-violent methods of destabilising captives, such as sleep deprivation or basic sensory deprivation (like keeping captives in the dark) are now considered "Torture", even though neither of those techniques have any effect beyond the psychological.

I mean, if you can't even destabilize terrorists on a purely psychological level, what are we supposed to use to get them to talk? Positive Thinking?

...Now, I, personally, had a great idea for an interrogation technique to use on Fanatical Jihadists..

Sit them down in chairs in a row, then bring up a Catholic priest to baptise them as good Catholics, one after the other, after making sure to drill into their skulls that once you're a Catholic, you're one for life.

...Now, imagine that you're a Jihadist who's not afraid of death because he's sure he's going to Heaven for being a good murderous muslim.. ...And suddenly you're told that once that priest tosses that Holy Water on you, you're no longer a Muslim, garanteed Heaven..

...Wouldn't you be afraid?

The only way this scene would be made better would be if Nip used a cigar as opposed to a cigarette.

Squeaky Bunny wrote:There is something almost biblical about getting needled in the eye with a Camel, but I regress.

You almost had me singing "When smokes get in your eyes"...

Narnian wrote:

Squeaky Bunny wrote:There is something almost biblical about getting needled in the eye with a Camel, but I regress.

You almost had me singing "When smokes get in your eyes"...

I thought "Weasel While You Work" was more your style?

IronFox wrote:The only way this scene would be made better would be if Nip used a cigar as opposed to a cigarette.

Nope. Camels, not Cohibas would be best suited for this purpose.