Jump to content


Old School
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lisae

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/01/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

396 profile views
  • b*rr

  • CBQ

  1. That's like saying if you can't find the body, there wasn't a murder. Manafort, Cohen and others have been lying their arses off. Why do you think that is?
  2. Also, the Kilimnik meeting that Manafort was found to have lied about is this one: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/how-manafort-s-meeting-at-new-york-cigar-club-goes-to-the-heart-of-russia-probe-20190214-p50xmq.html Hours after that meeting, Deripaska's jet is known to have flown into Newark from Moscow. Then a while later it flew back to Moscow. It then picked up Russia's Deputy Prime Minister and flew him to meet with Deripaska on a yacht in Norway. Nastya Rybka was on that yacht when that meeting took place, and has claimed to have evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. She was recently jailed in Thailand, then released and deported back to Russia, where she was jailed again and released. She now says she has no evidence of collusion. Manafort would rather go to jail for the rest of his life than tell the truth about this meeting with Kilimnik.
  3. I saw articles a couple of days ago about how the Mueller investigation has evidence of contact between Stone and Wikileaks, but I didn't fully appreciate the context and significance of that story. Stone had tried to get his case unlinked from the one against the GRU agents who were indicted for the DNC hacking. Mueller filed documents, however, showing that his case is most definitely linked to that one, because they have evidence of not only direct contact between Stone and Wikileaks, but also between Stone and Guccifer2.0, which had already been established to be the GRU agents in the previous indictment. We already knew about Stone's direct messages on Twitter with Wikileaks and Guccifer2.0. It's not 100% clear if the evidence revealed by Mueller goes further than that. The filing says: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-stone-wikileaks/mueller-says-searches-yielded-evidence-of-stone-wikileaks-communications-idUSKCN1Q502Z So it mentions several search warrants on several accounts. This implies they have more evidence than just the direct messages on Twitter.
  4. From this paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= "Governments sometimes characterize torture as an indispensable interrogation tool for gathering strategic intelligence. In this article, we review the relevant social scientific research on the effectiveness, impact, and causes of torture. First, we summarize research on false confessions and examine the relevance of that research for torture-based interrogations. Next, we review research on the mental health consequences of torture for survivors and perpetrators. Finally, we explore the social-psychological conditions that promote acts of cruelty (such as those seen at Abu Ghraib) and examine the arguments typically offered to justify the use of torture. We argue that any hypothesized benefits from the use of torture must be weighed against the substantial proven costs of torture. These costs include the unreliable information extracted through interrogations using torture, the mental and emotional toll on victims and torturers, loss of international stature and credibility, and the risk of retaliation against soldiers and civilians." "As early as the third century A.D., the great Roman Jurist Ulpian noted that information obtained through torture was not to be trusted because some people are “so susceptible to pain that they will tell any lie rather than suffer it” (Peters, 1996). This warning about the unreliability of information extracted through the use of torture has echoed across the centuries. As one CIA operative who participated in torture during the Vietnam War put it, “We had people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop torturing them” (Andersen, 2004, p. 3). Indeed, the Army Field Manual explains that strategically useful information is best obtained from prisoners who are treated humanely, and that information obtained through torture has produced faulty intelligence (Leahy, 2005). It is important to acknowledge that torture may sometimes lead to the dis- closure of accurate information. That is, confronted with excruciating pain, some people tell what they know. However, many survivors of torture report that the truthful information they revealed was intentionally incomplete or mixed with false information (Harbury, 2005). The goal was to appease the torturer, not to reveal the truth. And, because the interrogators were not omniscient, they could not discern which bits of information were true and which were false. Misreading their victims, torturers often failed to recognize the truth and continued to inflict pain. Victims continued to disclose, often fabricating information to in an effort to stop the pain (Conroy, 2000; Haritos-Fatouros, 2003). Many survivors of tor- ture report that they would have said anything to “make the torture stop” (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2006). And, even in cases where torture may have preceded the disclosure of useful information, it is impossible to know whether less coercive forms of interrogation might have yielded the same or even better results."
  5. The article cites several regimes who used torture and claim they extracted useful information that way. Firstly, they need to claim this so they can justify their actions. They're not ever going to say it didn't work. Secondly, they don't tell us whether the information came exclusively from torture, or whether it was, say, used to confirm information they got via intelligence or whatever. Thirdly, no one's ever going to be able to confirm any claim they made, with perhaps the exception of the Israeli supreme court case. Fourthly, how many completely innocent Palestinians, Irish citizens, etc were tortured and have suffered with the consequences for the rest of their lives so that these regimes can make the claim that it worked in a handful of cases? Fifthly, if torture was routine, how can they ever know whether or not they could have gotten the same information without inflicting that suffering, and without torturing so many innocent people in addition to those few? Sixthly, if torture didn't make Britain "worse", it's only because of its history of committing genocide and other white supremacist crimes against humanity on a global scale.
  6. lisae

    Emergency Powers

    I said back in 2016 that we need to be concerned about Trump invoking emergency powers - something despots are fond of doing. Three years later, that's exactly what he's done, in a transparent power grab. But I'm insane! The emergency declaration came on the same day that the funding bill expanded ICE's powers to detain people, as well as its budget. It also increased congressional oversight, but the point of declaring an emergency on the border is so Trump can bypass Congress. I'm worried about what that means with respect to ICE. But I'm insane! Trump already has a track record of having credentials revoked for journalists who ask the wrong questions. There are already topics that the Whitehouse no longer allows media coverage of, e.g. his expanded drone program. So things may happen at the border that you'll never hear about, ordered directly by Trump under his emergency powers. But I'm insane!
  7. It is relevant to the moral argument if you're examining the morality of doing something that's intended to cause extreme suffering, and is known not to work. Even if you think it might work in some specific cases, you can't know whether your case is one of those. All we know is that people will say whatever they think their torturers want to hear to make the torture stop. If you have the wrong person and they don't know anything, they'll give you a fake story and you will divert resources from finding the real bomb. If you have the right person, torture is unlikely to make them give you the information. It will just make them feel like the terrorist attack is fully justified.
  8. You could justify literally ANYTHING with that argument.
  9. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-rsquo-ve-known-for-400-years-that-torture-doesn-rsquo-t-work/
  10. You won't find the bomb by using torture. I don't know why you keep assuming that it actually works, when real world experience has shown that it doesn't.
  11. I said I would be conflicted, but not about torture. It's not an option.
  12. Torture does not provide accurate information. It's not moral absolutism to be against causing suffering or doing harm for no good reason. Regimes that use torture tell us that it's to get information. But it isn't. It's to force confessions so that the regime can manufacture charges against dissidents, specific groups they want to oppress, or whatever. It's to produce propaganda. It's to break political opponents and stop them from challenging authority. It's to defeat the enemy by breaking their spirit (even though it never achieves that either).
  13. lisae

    Emergency Powers

    Emergency powers are the mechanism of choice for dictatorial leaders who want to suspend civil liberties and concentrate more power in their own hands. Hitler is only one dictator of many who have done this. You have always, always been ludicrously wrong about my reasoning. Trump's declaration IS different to other presidents' declarations because, in case you haven't noticed, there's no actual emergency. He hasn't invoked these powers to deal with a real emergency. His motive is entirely, 100%, to grab power for himself. He's standing there, out in the open, telling the world "I am grabbing power for myself to bypass the democratic institutions of this country". And you're downplaying it, just as you have every single time this man has flat out told us how corrupt and venal he is.
  14. Yeah, he was found to have lied about his meeting with Kilimnik where he shared the polling data, and about the secret payment he received for his work on the campaign. And there are still names redacted in the filings about this case. People say it all points to him ultimately sharing the data with Deripaska, and that it's clear that it wound up in the hands of the GRU. He also has not been clear about his contacts with the campaign or the administration after he "left". All of which suggests that he was coordinating with the Russians, and that he received a kickback for it (possibly in the form of a donation to Trump's inauguration), and that he was keeping the campaign informed about everything he was doing. All while the Moscow Project was being negotiated. And he's lied about it because going to jail is better than being dead, and there's still a chance Trump can pardon him.
  15. lisae

    Emergency Powers

    I was right. You can't handle it. A president like Trump invoking emergency powers was the most predictable thing in the world, and now the inevitable has happened.