Robert F. Smith Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 WWHNS?Hugh's life-long friend and Army intelligence colleague, Lucien Goldschmidt, said of Hugh Nibley's refusal to be an interrogator:Hugh Nibley decided that he would not like to be an interrogator. The idea of pressing others--soldiers who were under orders not to reveal information--to press them to reveal it seemed morally unpleasant to him. He therefore, wisely, went into the section called Order of Battle.Alex Nibley, Sergeant Nibley, PhD: Memories of an Unlikely Screaming Eagle (Shadow Mountain, 2006), 64-65. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 I don't have a problem with interrogators doing their job. It is some of the methods of "pressing" some over zealous ones used.
Bikeemikey Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 If someone has information that will save a life, or many lives, and they willfully refuse to share the information, there seems a moral obligation to extract that information from them. 2
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 How do know if they are lying to you or not?
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) I don't have a problem with interrogators doing their job. It is some of the methods of "pressing" some over zealous ones used.Here is your trick or treat candy now will you please tell us who you plan to blow up next. Yep I think it will work. Edited October 27, 2012 by ERayR
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 How do know if they are lying to you or not?Never rely on a single source intelligence. It gives you something to verify, places to look.
ERMD Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Nibley was apparently uncomfortable with it.I on the other hand, am not. 2
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 That helps when there is sufficient time, but is no panacea. Trained interrogators know that the best, most reliable information, comes from those whom trust we have gained. So yes a pack of cigarettes, a couple of candy bars is all it takes.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 That helps when there is sufficient time, but is no panacea.Trained interrogators know that the best, most reliable information, comes from those whom trust we have gained. So yes a pack of cigarettes, a couple of candy bars is all it takes.
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) If someone has information that will save a life, or many lives, and they willfully refuse to share the information, there seems a moral obligation to extract that information from them.No it doesn't, not even close. One of the Israelite kings, I forget which, relied on a Prophet for military information. THAT is the moral imperative. He was rewarded with the Lord sending angels to destroy Sennecherib's army. If you have to rely on torture to get information, it simply shows a lack of faith in God. Edited October 27, 2012 by Mark Beesley
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 No it doesn't, not even close. One of the Israelite kings, I forget which, relied on a Prophet for military information. THAT is the moral imperative. He was rewarded with the Lord sending angels to destroy Sennecherib's army. If you have to rely on torture to get information, it simply shows a lack of faith in God.I just don't see a prophet on the National Security Council. That leaves us to have to search out other ways.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Hiding from God seldom works.Neither does hiding and hoping problems go away. That seldom works.
Recommended Posts