Samuel wrote:The government of the US got away with secret prison camps and water boarding in the Bush Administration. Messing with a prisoners mind won't get anymore of an objection- it doesn't leave any marks after all. That and the individual is collaberating with enemies of mankind. There is no doubt it would be highly illegal, but I don't know if case law yet covers projecting false images into a suspects brain.
I'm sorry, I screwed up. I should have made it clear that I was referring to the hypothetical case where Luga
actually did what she made the suspect think she did. What she actually
said was a fairly strongly implied threat, but what she made Branch
think she did was a far more serious case of physical intimidation.
Unless they happen to seize on the "demonic mind control" aspect of the situation and decide to hate that, I think people would shrug off what
did happen. But a tape recording what Branch
thought happened could potentially set off a scandal. I don't know if it would, but it might, and with the example of what happened to a lot of the low-ranking soldiers at Abu Ghraib in mind, I think most FBI agents would be wary of cooperating with something like that.
Bayonet wrote:Are you kidding? This is an extremely popular war. The public, in general, wouldn't care if they tortured her with red hot irons. The only people who would care are obviously enemy agents, and they must be liquidated. Anyone actually complaining would probably be arrested for sedition and suspicion of treason.
This is an existential exercise.
I don't know. I agree that a public freakout wouldn't be
expected, but I could see it happening. The Abu Ghraib scandal happened when the Iraq War was still fairly popular, and so did the first grumbles about what was happening at Guantanamo. The Bush administration got away with it, yes. But imagine if those tortures had happened without high-level approval from the administration, if they had been low-level initiatives. In that case, I don't think that the higher-ups would be thanking the people on the ground who actually did the deed. I wouldn't care to be remembered by my superiors four or five links up the chain as "the guy who thought it was a good idea to torture a suspect and forced me to go testify at a Congressional hearing."
It's not a high risk, but it's a significant risk. One that I would prefer to avoid taking.
Edward Yee wrote:Amusing to see Kim Jong-il go from scared shitless to being bailed out by a son who can see the forest for the trees.
Although compared to their real-life counterparts, the game is completely different now. I don't think they even had to see Myanmar's fall to know that realistically joining up with Heaven wouldn't do shit.
They've been monkeying around doing nothing of consequence for months now, remember? Obviously, they were still working on their delaying tactics even before the invasion of Thailand- either because Clever Son had de facto command from the beginning, or because Kim Jong Il was smart enough to see the situation to begin with. The fact that he's terrified into openly agreeing to do what Michael says doesn't mean that he's stupid or incompetent.