Disturbingly, this show actually made people think torture is an effective interrogation technique.

This, and the interrogation scene from The Last Starfighter really screwed up some of my dreams when I was a kid.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
Encoding for a specific protein
Make a few snips at this coded locus
You work so well inside a streptococcus
Cas9
I'm so alone
Without your scissors in my chromosome
Cut me up and do it clean
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Keep me a gene
A viral sequence you've already seen
Chopped into bits and stored as genomic
With clustered repeats
That are palindromic
Cas9
Bind with this code
Use it to target infections of old
Immunized like a vaccine
CRISPR-Cas9 keep me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Cut me a gene
With a precision that I've never seen
Unzip a strand and interrogate it
Seek out your sequence until you locate it
Cas9
Lock into place
And do your job as endonuclease
Chop just like a guillotine
CRISPR-Cas9 cut me a gene

Snip snap!
CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
By commandeering my repair routine
A strand to match your severed location
For some homologous recombination
Cas9
Cheap and precise
Rewriting genomes from microbes to mice
And soon the humble human being
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Give us a gene
Give us a miracle like that one Nazarene
‘Cause giving the lame their legs and the blind their sight is
In view for dystrophy and retinitis
But CRISPR-Cas9
What if you fall
Outside our power and inside us all
That really could incite a scene

When this terrible wonderful power unsettling
Opens the door to unethically meddle
Is ev’ry congenital malady bettered
Sufficient to warrant genetics unfettered
To modify man in the manner of Gattaca
Raise up a mammoth or make a rattata
Dramatical medical means to eradicate aging
Or cancer or make a fanatic
A mass epidemic a weapon nefarious
Single mosquito to wipe out malaria
Send in a viral infection to ferry a
Cure to the cells of an HIV carrier
Freed of disease as we're free to uncover
What nature and accident failed to discover
And free to be other than
All that we ever have been

CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

Oh CRISPR-Cas9
Bring us a gene
You wondrous ribonucleoprotein
You have the power to vanquish or save us
Who would have thought that the microbe that gave us
Cas9
S. pyogenes
The source of strep and flesh-eating disease
Housed this marvellous machine
Full of uses great and obscene
CRISPR-Cas9 bring us
Please don't sting us
Cas9 bring us a gene

With adenine
And thiamine
Incite a scene
Cas9 bring us a gene!

This has become a pretty big issue in Japan recently, especially since a couple of years ago when it was discovered that prosecutors in the city of Osaka had unlawfully obtained confessions fabricated evidence for dozens of cases. The scandal led to lots of resignations and calls for re-trials.

There have actually been a lot of people in the past couple of years let off death row here because new evidence (DNA, crime reconstructions, etc.) has shown that they could not have been responsible for the crime. Still, the system is totally borked right now and the police/prosecutors have most of the power. There's been a lot of talk about the changes that need to be made (limiting interrogation times, requiring all interrogations to be video recorded, etc.) but nothing concrete has happened yet AFAIK.

I agree with everything you said brycewi. And it would apply here too IF Adam was providing information that wasn't well known by nearly everyone today. Most people believe lie detectors are pseudo science. It is not even comparable to global warming, and even less than anti-vaccines (Or if this is somehow untrue, then Adam doesn't provide how truly well believed this phenomenon is as he prattles on.) So that is where we would vary significantly on, not that the service of providing debunking of something taken as true is important/unimportant.

Yes, some people believe it works. Others watch it on talk shows and such for entertainment and even some law enforcement use it for confessional purposes. We get that. But then again some Africans believe raping a virgin will cure AIDs...does that mean their country is a bunch of degenerates? No, because only a few do.

Adam goes off on this rant based on information in what, the 90s? When everyone had this unshakable faith in the lie detector? My family's entire life rested on one of these machines at one time, so I know. (It didn't turn out good, lets leave it at that.)

Further, we differentiate three "uses" of the lie detector.
1-Entertainment:
A-Nobody believes it works, just like nobody believes Jerry Springer or Wrestling isn't fake.
B-Lumping those people in with those who do believe is disingenuous at best, manipulative at worst.
2-Law Enforcement:
A-They really don't care as long as they obtain guilty confessions. In other words, they already know (think) they have the bad guy and use it as an interrogation techniques.
B-You can argue with this practice as shady and deceptive (ironic isn't it?) but we shouldn't confuse belief with reliance.
3-Excluding the examples above, since they DON'T believe, those in the ultra fringe don't constitute "widely accepted."

@yellowc

Agreed. I fly internationally a lot but find it is worse on domestic flights. Things tend to move smoothly at the international terminal checkins (literally through in just minutes) but flying state to state I've almost missed my flight a couple of times because of the security theater.

One time we had to wait 40 minutes because we were travelling with my mother-in-law who has a metal hip and she kept setting off the metal detector. They said they needed to pat her down (a 67-year old grandma, for chrissakes) but they didn't have any female TSA agents available at the time. We barely made the flight, running to get on only moments before they closed the doors.

My parents, meanwhile, actually missed a flight once because my mom forgot she had liquid gelcap cold medicine in her purse and they got pulled out of the security line and interrogated.

Seriously, wtf?

*quality video.

LMFAHS. *promote

But why was he being interrogated inside the jailhouse? That threw me off. Should've been set in a police station interrogation room.

I highly doubt the police officer would have even tried to have a conversation at first (it was hardly an interrogation) if the camera guy wasn't deliberately pointing a camera at the officer in the middle of nowhere. The officer first asked (twice) politely how the camera guy was doing.

I'm certainly not saying that the camera guy doesn't have the right to film, but I am almost certain he was trying to provoke a reaction and was very likely pleased with the eventual outcome. Yay for him I suppose by escalating it so.

I'm still at a complete loss as to why some people seem to think that calmly not submitting to random intrusive 'investigative' questioning makes a person a tool. The cop's not looking to have a nice conversation or make a friend, he's looking for anything he can use against the person he's interrogating...and often, as in this case, when they can't find anything, they'll make something up.
EDIT: often, they'll say you said something you didn't say, or twist what you may have said to come up with a reason to go farther and charge you with something made up. That's why you should say NOTHING, then they have nothing to twist or lie about 'mishearing' or 'misunderstanding'.

As I see it, not answering questions is not disruptive, not dangerous, doesn't cause fear (in normal people), is patriotic, and is also a methodology suggested by nearly EVERY lawyer worth their salt. I can't see the drawback, or how being respectfully reasonable and safe makes someone a tool. I think answering a cop's questions makes a person a tool...one that gives up their hard won right against self incrimination in order to not upset or inconvenience their overzealous interrogator, at the risk of their own freedom, safety, and sometimes life.
Since no one has put forth a reasonable explanation WHY one would act in such a self defeating, disrespectful (to those who died to secure the right to not incriminate yourself or be searched at random), unsafe, victimized way, it seems we should just agree to disagree. I think I put forth a number of logical reasons why I see this behavior (not answering questions) as perfectly reasonable AT ALL TIMES, and fortunately for me the DAs and judges agree with me.

I think the idea was to extract OSS agents from the occupied countries of Europe during WW-II...

Or, more amusingly, captured German officers for interrogation.
No idea if it ever worked as intended.

So, it's not the lying cop that's confrontational in your eyes?
We know she lied about seeing him because she doesn't give him a 'smoking in public' ticket, which I'm 99.99999% certain she would have written if she had actually seen him smoking.

I agree, he handled it badly, but I say he handled it badly because he spoke to the cop at all.

It is NOT in your best interest to remain cooperative with a cop....EVER. If they ask you a question, it's only asked to find a crime to charge you with. ANY question you answer is enough for them to lie and say 'he sounded drunk/high/angry/slow/like he was lying' and continue interrogating and investigating you, or just plain arrest you, then claim you said something completely different (prime example: see this video where she claims he never said he didn't smoke, although the video proves he DID say he never smoked in his life, but cops are all 'professionally' trained liars and most will lie about you to find something to charge you with). Don't give them a thing to twist into something to investigate or charge you with...not a god damn word. If you say nothing, they can't twist it into something actionable.

Does that go for officers as well, giving me probable cause to stop and interrogate them as to why they're such cowardly infants that they need to be holding a gun to feel 'safe'? Can I put my cocked gun to their head while I scream my questions? Can I empty my clip into them if they move? Somehow I doubt it.
Open carry is only probable cause in DC...unless that's changed now.
Federal law trumps local law, and federal law said any citizen can carry, even if the community doesn't like that.

EDIT: It makes me think of the normal procedure where a cop will say 'I'm going to take your weapon and put it over here away from you...FOR YOUR SAFETY.' I always wonder why the citizen doesn't reply..."OK, but first I'm going to take YOUR gun and put it over here away from YOUR grasp for YOUR safety...officer." You know...'What's good for the goose', and all.

love LOVE urban as dredd!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/judge-dredd-interrogation-scene