Discussion History Main / HighAltitudeInterrogation

Go To

[007] SeanMurrayI Current Version

Changed line(s) 0 from:

to:

I never even brought up morality, and I don\\\'t even have to. This just \\\'\\\'can\\\'t\\\'\\\' be an effective method. Even if a suspect does give up information when dangled from a high place and threatened to be dropped, there generally isn\\\'t much chance that the information is actually reliable or truthful and not just what the interrogator wants to hear.

Changed line(s) 2 from:

I never even brought up morality, and I don\'t even have to. It just \'\'can\'t\'\' be an effective method. Even if a suspect does give up information when dangled from a high place and threatened to be dropped, there generally isn\'t much chance that the information is actually reliable or truthful and not just what the interrogator wants to hear.

to:

[006] SeanMurrayI

21st Dec '11 at 06:06:49 AM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

to:

I never even brought up morality, and I don\\\'t even have to. It just \\\'\\\'can\\\'t\\\'\\\' be an effective method. Even if a suspect does give up information when dangled from a high place and threatened to be dropped, there generally isn\\\'t much chance that the information is actually reliable or truthful and not just what the interrogator wants to hear.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

I never even touched upon morality, and I don\'t even have to. It just \'\'can\'t\'\' be an effective method. Even if a suspect does give up information when dangled from a high place and threatened to be dropped, there generally isn\'t much chance that the information is actually reliable or truthful and not just what the interrogator wants to hear.

to:

[005] SeanMurrayI

21st Dec '11 at 06:06:26 AM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

It can\'t be an effective method. Even if a suspect does give up information when dangled from a high place and threatened to be dropped, there generally isn\'t much chance that the information is actually reliable or truthful and not just what the interrogator wants to hear.

to:

Changed line(s) 3 from:

All in all, there are several good reasons law enforcement or intelligence agencies don\'t rely solely on information gained through torture or threats of death and why courts of law in nearly all western democracies around the world find such confessions and testimonies inadmissible, and such reasons don\'t have to boil down to morality.

to:

Changed line(s) 4 from:

to:

I never even touched upon morality, and I don\\\'t even have to. It just \\\'\\\'can\\\'t\\\'\\\' be an effective method. Even if a suspect does give up information when dangled from a high place and threatened to be dropped, there generally isn\\\'t much chance that the information is actually reliable or truthful and not just what the interrogator wants to hear.

All in all, there are several good reasons law enforcement or intelligence agencies don\\\'t rely solely on information gained through torture or threats of death and why courts of law in nearly all western democracies around the world find such confessions and testimonies inadmissible, and such reasons don\\\'t have to boil down to morality.

[004] SeanMurrayI

23rd Oct '11 at 02:15:33 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

All in all, there are several good reasons why confessions given under torture or threats of death are inadmissible in courts of law in nearly all western democracies around the world.

to:

All in all, there are several good reasons law enforcement or intelligence agencies don\\\'t rely solely on information gained through torture or threats of death and why courts of law in nearly all western democracies around the world find such confessions and testimonies inadmissible, and such reasons don\\\'t have to boil down to morality.

[003] SeanMurrayI

10th Oct '11 at 10:03:41 AM

Changed line(s) 5 from:

And, again, there are many easier ways to interrogate a suspect or acquire reliable information from them without ever having to threaten to kill them. In RealLife, an interrogator would \'\'never\'\' be in a situation where this would be his \'\'only\'\' way of interrogating somebody, and it\'s \'\'never\'\' a completely reliable method in any realistic context.

to:

And, again, there are \\\'\\\'many\\\'\\\' much more reliable ways to interrogate a suspect and acquire information from them without ever having to threaten to kill them. In RealLife, an interrogator would \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' be in a situation where this would be his \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' way of interrogating somebody, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' a completely reliable method in any realistic context.

[002] SeanMurrayI

10th Oct '11 at 09:29:46 AM

Changed line(s) 5 from:

And, again, there are many easier ways to interrogate a suspect without ever having to threaten to kill the person. An interrogator would \'\'never\'\' be in a situation where this would be his \'\'only\'\' way of interrogating somebody, and it\'s \'\'never\'\' a completely reliable method in any realistic context.

to:

And, again, there are many easier ways to interrogate a suspect or acquire reliable information from them without ever having to threaten to kill them. In RealLife, an interrogator would \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' be in a situation where this would be his \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' way of interrogating somebody, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' a completely reliable method in any realistic context.

[001] SeanMurrayI

10th Oct '11 at 09:28:04 AM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

All in all, there are several good reasons why confessions given under torture or threats of death and inadmissible in courts of law in nearly all western democracies around the world.

to:

All in all, there are several good reasons why confessions given under torture or threats of death are inadmissible in courts of law in nearly all western democracies around the world.

Top