Post by James WarrenPost by HRM ResidentPost by James WarrenPost by HRM ResidentPost by James WarrenPost by residentPost by James WarrenI got it from your reply to one of my posts about your function in the CF.
Others jumped on it. It was your mess. You explain it.
What was your post about and what did I say in reply?
I don't remember the exact words and I don't care.
It is your problem. You explain it.
Why do you waste your time engaging with a "person" who, whether
he would be permitted to do it by his superiors or
not, *claimed* he had no *moral* problems with beating women if it
would make them talk?
I am quite sure he did not claim to beat women.
I think he was bragging about his interrogation ("brow beating") skills.
Post by HRM ResidentRemember, this "person" brought it up. This "person" was the one
who said he had used and taught interrogation
techniques that would "make mothers admit to being a terrorist."
Sounds like torture to me, even it the mother was a
terrorist. He probably was trained in Gitmo.
I don't want to be in the position of defending Carter but I
think that jumping to the conclusion that he engaged in torture,
or would have engaged in torture, is overstating what we know or
think we know.
I do remember that people went very cold on him after that post.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
In this experiment many normal people engaged in cruel behavior
simply because they were put in a position of power. Also, remember
Zagreb where ostensibly normal folk engaged in torture when given
power. Normal people will also deliver "lethal" shocks to a stranger
simply because they were told to do so by the experimenter, an authority
figure.
We all say that we would never do it, but can we be so sure?
Post by HRM ResidentThe excuse when taken to task: "I'll admit it was a poor choice
of words." Wow! I wonder if that is all you have
to say to be forgiven in the CF. I think, instead, someone's true
personality slipped out. And that's fine. His
employers (us) deserve to know what he was doing for the money we paid him.
It looks like in hfx.general it is one strike and you're out.
Was he hated before this post? I don't remember.
Yes, he destroyed ns.general and then set up camp here with the
same objective. Also go to nl.general and mention
his name! He succeeded in destroying ns.general with help from Jack.
The goal in both NGs was to stop ALL posts except
political and religious fights and drive anyone with 2 ounces of sense
away. Mission accomplished.
So how were they able to do that? I engaged several RWAs here and some
quit. All I did was challenge the validity of their claims and reasoning.
Some became abusive but so what? That just means that they were frustrated,
embarrassed or cornered or proved wrong. Just don't respond to the abuse.
Ignoring them can work too.
Post by HRM ResidentPost by James WarrenPost by HRM ResidentWhile we don't pay MPs to be nice, I was under the impression
they were not allowed to torture, or suggest torture
to, those they were interrogating. At this point it's not really
important if he did it or not. The fact he suggested
it tells us all we need to know about him. And that he has no shame
because he keeps showing up here.
Does it really?
Admittedly he does not appear to be a nice person but
is he really evil incarnated? Perhaps he is but I need
more information to conclude that.
All I saw was his claim that he did so. Maybe he lied. What I'm
sure he did was use the Reid Technique, which is
quite controversial and now illegal in many European countries. In
2015 the RCMP abandoned it in favour of a more
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique>
Carter was especially proud of the part "the technique can elicit
false confessions from innocent persons,
especially children." It is also used on witnesses to make them
testify in support of the officer's theory, again to
ensure a false story.
Whether he physically beat women or psychologically used the Reid
Technique makes zero difference to me. My point
was and remains: Carter bragged about eliciting false confessions and
testimony. That is a disgrace to the uniform he
claims to have worn, and why I find him repulsive. He tried to
minimise it by calling it a poor choice of words. He
was a poor choice by whoever recruited him . . .
What can I say to that? I don't know what technique he bragged about using.
He said he could elicit false confessions but I don't know if he actually
did.
You know both Carter and Jack longer than I do, so perhaps I am missing
some important information. For my part, I see nothing to fear from either
of them. They are just poor misguided right wing authoritarian bigots. lol
They are fairly easy to deal with.
In earlier posts you seemed to be saying that cannot be, and should not be,
any dialogue between lefties and righties. This will create an impenetrable
barrier. This can't be good if we are to get along in the world.
Did you read the "Reid Technique?" It's a couple of pages, but it
was the main tool of the CF and most police agencies in the West until
quite recently. I'm sure both of our RWAs love it. This is it in a
nutshell:
"The Reid Technique's nine steps of interrogation are:
(1) Direct confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led
the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early
opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
(2) Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or
set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That
is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify
or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to
which the accused is most responsive.
(3) Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt.
(4) At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she
did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards
the confession.
(5) Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
(6) The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme
discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this
point, infer guilt.
(7) Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what
happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is
expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the
suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which
is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
(8) Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of
witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the
validity of the confession.
(9) Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her
prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written)."
You want to talk to those two assholes when that's what they did to
others? Where is the "presumption of innocence" in any of the steps
above? Why is it OK to use this technique to change the story of a
witness? Sounds to me like what I'd expect in North Korea for farting
or burping.
Anyhow, everyone but you ignored them for 2-3 years. Who's left?
You, Jack and Carter. Ignoring didn't work. Why? Because they both
know you will respond ASAP to anything they post . . . gives them a
reason to get up and a giggle as they go to the bank to withdraw more
pension money . . . they only need one responder to keep the hate
discussions going, and they have managed to do so for well over a
decade. They can count on you. Why? You will never make a dent.
--
HRM Resident