11.01.07
What is Civilized?
According to the dictionary, civilized is an adjective meaning “having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.” Interesting if not a little vague. But what happens when being civilized interferes with community well being? It makes me wonder; are we misinterpreting “civilized” and allowing it to stand in the way of our own well being? Or worse yet, as [human] animals, are we actually truly capable of being civilized so long as there are uncivilized elements to contend with?
This post, and it’s seemingly rhetorical questions, is actually about torture. It is a topic I have purposely stayed away from because I wanted to have a good answer to give. This topic even sprung up at our blog conference, and I bowed out of the conversation due to the excessively controversial nature of the topic. However, I can refrain no longer, and it’s time for me to weigh in on this one.
Do people give up certain rights when they pursue questionable paths? The civilized answer, of course, is no. The “civilized” person will tell you that all people have certain rights regardless of what they do or have done. They will tell you that we need to be “above that” and treat everybody with dignity and respect.
In a civilized world, this may work out just fine. However, we do not live in a civilized world. We live in a mixed society with some nations being civilized and other being quite uncivilized. Even within civilized societies you find uncivilized pockets here and there. So the question to answer is this: in a so-called civilized world, how do you deal with the uncivilized?
I’m going to use the now infamous hypothetical example here. If there was a nuclear weapon set to go off in a large American city and you had somebody in custody who had information that could prevent the incident, would it be acceptable to torture the person for information?
The civilized people would say no. They claim that everybody is entitles to rights and dignity - even if that means that the individuals rights and dignity are protected while other lives are lost. So is it civilized to shelter one person at the expense of many? Interestingly, many would say yes. I say no.
This is where the definition of civilized gets lost. Permitting the loss of life while sheltering somebody simply because you think that you are “above it” to torture them for information is not civilized. It’s asinine. The preservation of life takes precedence over human rights and dignity. This is especially true when it comes to individuals who have chosen the path of evil. As far as I am concerned, they gave up their human rights as soon as they chose to take up the cause of destruction and death.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t endorse torture for fun or punishment. I endorse torture to extract information that would be used to save lives - whether in the immediate term or in the future, it makes no difference. Simply allowing somebody to sit back and enjoy their human rights while others die is an unacceptable option… And sometimes asking nicely just does cut it. So where does that leave us as “civilized” people? Do we allow the bad guy t sit back with a smug smile on his face because our hands are bound by our own delusions of civility?
Hell no. We hurt that person mentally or physically until he cracks and tells us what we need to know to save lives. Wipe that smug look off his face and remind him that human rights apply to the innocent before they apply to those who submit to evil. It is the way things have to be. Simply being the better person and shrugging your shoulders when asking nicely doesn’t work doesn’t work when dealing with the uncivilized.
What is particularly interesting is that those who protest the loudest against the use of torture really have no alternative solution. They simply believe that we need to take the civilized route and treat all people with respect and dignity regardless of the situation. But how can this work? How can these people think it is acceptable to allow “civility” to override the preservation of innocent life? It makes no sense. Every life is not equally important or worthy or respect and dignity. The sooner we recognize and accept this, the sooner we can move forward.
micky2 said,
November 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm
A yes, the ticking time bomb scenario.
I see it this way. If you put on a uniform or get caught shooting at our guys or conspire and consort with our enemy, you’re fair game.
Rules of engagement and all that crap can go to hell.
I’ve had too many scraps in my life, some life threatning. I am not out to impress anyone.
With 7 years of training in Chinese kempo, the most agressive undressed grandaddy of all martial arts, I will still bite you, gouge out your eyes or pick up a 2×4 and club the shit out of you, I dont care.
We need to fight to win lives, not hearts.
tekel said,
November 2, 2007 at 12:59 am
two and one half thoughts:
1) if you want to constrain your evaluation to a given set of circumstances, like the “ticking nuke” situation, that’s fine. But I think it’s fair to insist that the circumstances we use to reach a real-world conclusion are as close as possible to reality. So, unless there really is a ticking nuke in the middle of a city somewhere, your Nino Scalia / Jack Bower pro-torture argument falls apart.
And the reality is that there isn’t a ticking nuke. Period. The reality is that most of the jokers we are torturing in Guantanamo are just sad assholes who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which is funny, because we’re the ones who invaded THEIR country. It’s kind of like if (to pick an unlikely country at random) Nigeria invaded your home town, and your neighbor broke in to your house and handcuffed you and then sold you to the Nigerian invaders.
And even if there was a nuke to defuse, we’ve been holding them incommunicado for the last five years. How the hell would they know the secret codes to save new york?
2)You say: Every life is not equally important or worthy o[f] respect and dignity. The sooner we recognize and accept this, the sooner we can move forward. The 14th Amendment says you’re wrong : ” [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So what am I going to believe, you or the US Constitution? Seems to me that anyone willing to argue that some humans are more equal than others is doing the exact opposite of moving forward.
1/2: It’s not that I think ‘turn the other cheek’ should be the ultimate goal of civilized human society. I agree that it is essential to be able to defend yourself (and the country) from attack. But hypocrisy and irrational fear get my knickers in a bunch. I’m not scared of terrorism, and I don’t see why others should be. No other sovereign nation is a legitimate military threat to the United States. Period. So I think it’s a mistake to let this country be led back into the 1800s by people who either cannot master their own irrational fear, or who are willing to exploit the fear of others to seize more power for themselves.
And as for choosing evil, I can think of no greater evil than abusing a position of public leadership by lying to the people who trust you in order to attain short-term worldly personal gain.
arclightzero said,
November 2, 2007 at 7:37 am
Whoa, good god… I don’t even know where to start with this one…
First off, drop the Bush administration-bashing rhetoric. I spoke nothing of Bush or the administration, and considering you felt the compulsion to go there speaks volumes about where you’re coming from. The whole “lying to the people who trust you in order to attain short-term worldly personal gain” thing is neither here nor there, so I’ll just pretend that you didn’t say it.
So, to take on your first point, I just used the “ticking nuke” scenario as an example because it has been used over and over. Want other examples? Fine, if somebody knew something about any action that would result in the loss of human life, I believe we have the right to extract that information via any means necessary. Whether that is millions of lives at stake via the nuke scenario or a dozen Marines who are patrolling in a Humvee convoy and we captured the guy who planted the roadside bombs that are set to go off. It makes no difference to me. The preservation of innocent life overrules the dignity and respect of somebody who has information and is unwilling to give it up.
However, you make a big mistake here by putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about Gitmo or torturing prisoners there. Don’t go assuming that because I support the use of torture that I support everything that is “supposedly” going on right now. I said I support the preservation of innocent lives. Would torturing a prisoner who’s been held at Gitmo for five years help in that? Probably not, so I wouldn’t support that. Torture for no real gain is pointless; however if something of great value can be obtained, then so be it.
As for your second point, as I said before, I firmly believe that when people take up certain actions, they forfeit any rights that they once had - even the most basic of human rights. Why should the 14th amendment benefit me, a law-abiding good citizen, in the same manner as it protects somebody who has made it his life’s purpose to kill and terrorize others human beings? You can hide behind the constitution all you want, but I don’t believe that the constitution was ever meant to shelter terrorists or criminals. After all, law and punishment was much more severe at the time the 14th amendment was proposed and ratified than it is now. What has changed since then other than our own self-righteous attitude of being “civilized?” Do you think a terrorist would have been treated with dignity and respect and given his 14th amendment rights in 1868?
As for your last point, this is not about fear. I speak nothing of fear. I only speak of saving lives. In fact, I don’t rightly know where you’re coming up with this fear thing. Do you think I endorse torture because I fear terrorism? Far from it, my friend. I endorse torture because I love life. The deliberate taking of any innocent life - whether my own, somebody I know or a complete stranger - is one loss too many. I am not afraid of being blown up by a terrorist, but I can assure you that if I knew that others had died in a terrorist incident and that it could have been prevented had we been able to “forcibly” extract information from a suspect, I would be really pissed off.
But you see, herein lies the problem, and you still didn’t even answer my challenge. What is your answer? Pick up any scenario. If you have, in your custody, somebody who has knowledge that can save lives, how would you get that information without torture?
micky2 said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:04 am
Teket said;
“Which is funny, because we’re the ones who invaded THEIR country.”
Hmmm, you might want to think that over teket.
Afghanistan was by proxy Al Quedas country, rule of the country was contracted out to the Taliban.
Where the hell were you on 911 ?
With this appeasing apologistic and totally delusional view, its no surprise you are more worried about the welfare of an enemy combatent than you probably are about one of your own loved ones.
ChenZhen said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:21 am
I take it then that you would consider the abuse inflicted on our servicemen at the Hanoi Hilton to be justified, assuming that those actions were taken under the assumption that they might’ve gleaned intel that would save the lives of their North Vietnamese brethren?
arclightzero said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:30 am
Of course. Why wouldn’t I? I’m not a hypocrite by any stretch, and I would never say that it is acceptable for us to use force to extract information from our enemies only to turn around and say that it isn’t acceptable for those same methods to be used against us. It is that sort of attitude that gets us in so much trouble these days as it is. Do as I say, not as I do is not good policy.
Like Micky says, you put on the uniform and you’re fair game - especially if you know something that is of use to your enemy. When I got out of the service, I was classified as Geneva Conventions Category 2 which meant that I knew things of importance. I also had a secret clearance and was privy to some very useful operational information. I knew that if I were to be captured in battle that I would be asked what I know in a less-than friendly manner. It comes with the territory. As members of the military, it should be expected that bad things might happen to you. You don’t have to like that it happens, but you have to accept the realities of the situation.
tekel said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:37 am
Torture for no real gain is pointless
Exactly. But this is the whole problem with your thesis- victims of torture don’t tell the truth. They tell the interrogator exactly what they think he wants to hear. There is finally starting to be a little press about the Higazy case- and you should look into that, because it provides a great example of what goes wrong when we torture suspects. Here’s a summary: we arrested this guy because they found a 2-way airplane-band radio in his New York hotel room at some point just after 9/11/01. I’ll agree that’s suspicious. He was an Egyptian muslim, which made people even more suspicious of him. So we locked him up, which is potentially reasonable. And then, the FBI strapped him into a modified polygraph which they used to inflict physical pain and electrical shocks (that’s torture, folks!), and they threatened to turn his family over to the Egyptian secret police for more torture. He knew nothing about the radio. But he did know that the Egyptians would probably destroy his family, rape his sister, torture his father and brother…
So he confessed. He said the radio was his, and that he was eavesdropping on flight information, and that he was planning an attack. He gave a false confession to protect his family.
And then in the next week or two, the 30ish white male American Airlines pilot who had rented the hotel room the night before Higazy showed up at the same hotel, asking where his radio was.
See the problem here? If your premise is that torture saves lives by making suspects talk, that is true, as far as it goes. The torture victim always talks. But what they say is usually worthless, because they’ll say anything to make the torture stop.
arclightzero said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:47 am
Tekel, your scope is far too narrow.
Using force to gain a confession is just plain stupid. Of course somebody is going to tell you what you want to hear. If you tell somebody that you are going to hurt them until they confess to something, they will start singing like a bird. This is why you need to have a very significant knowledge of psychology to gain useful information from somebody. You have to know what to ask. I am not saying that we are doing the right thing right now. Your example proves what I am trying to say. It is ridiculous to think that you can get somebody to tell the truth when it comes to a forced confession.
However, if you have <em<knowledge of something, that is a different story. If you know the location of something or somebody. If you know battle plans or strategy. If you know secrets… That’s a whole different game. Somebody can’t simply “tell you what you want to hear to get you to stop” if there isn’t a specific answer being sought. If somebody is looking to extract what you know, your excuse just doesn’t work.
See the difference?
tekel said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:54 am
(no need to approve this comment)
not ducking you- got to run errands in the real world for a couple of hours. I’m very interested in continuing conversation, back in a bit….
tekel said,
November 2, 2007 at 10:57 am
I do see the difference. But when the torture victim is confessing battle plans to you, and you don’t have independant confirmation, how do you separate the actual plans from some fiction that he just made up?
Do you torture more people to get confirmation? What if they tell you different things?
Do you keep on torturing people until two of them tell you a similar story, and then you assume that it’s true?
ChenZhen said,
November 2, 2007 at 11:12 am
Maybe instead of dealing in hypotheticals, someone should find a record of an instance where the torture actually had positive utilitarian outcome.
In the meantime, I added tekel to my blogroll, and I’ll send an invitation to join the alliance.
micky2 said,
November 2, 2007 at 11:19 am
tekel said;
“But this is the whole problem with your thesis- victims of torture don’t tell the truth. They tell the interrogator exactly what they think he wants to hear.”
You know this for a fact ?
I know for a fact that when the person being interogated gives info , the first thing we do is to verify it by some means of comfirmation.
We dont just take his word for it and go on a spree.
Higazy would of had to prove where he got the radio and verification of communications he heard over the radio.
This was not an urgent situatuion, it was only suspicious, and the towers had already come down.
All flights had been grounded and it was not likely at that point (3days later) that any more planes would be used as missiles.( He was not tortured by the way)Cops have threatend that they could lock me up for life, that all part of it, its not torture.
Even though the FBI kinda fucked this one up it is just a small example of the imperfections we have as humans and should stand as no reason not to interogate suspects “agressivly”.
Richard Jewel and other sad mistakes have happened before,” but the need of the many far outweighs the need of the one.” ( Spock )
Its better to try and make mistakes than to not try and millions die.
If half these assholes knew ahead of time that they were going to get their balls cut off and shoved up their asses we probably would only have to ask them politley and once.
But as it stands they laugh at us and tell us the moon is made of cheese because they know that some bleeding heart society is watching us ready to make America look like the bad guys in a heart beat.
It was funnier than hell when we had these assholes using themselves as human sheilds in Iraq right before the bombing started. Well the bombing started and the first thing they did was run to the military for help, unfucking believeable.
micky2 said,
November 2, 2007 at 11:25 am
Chen zhen,
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Known as KSM, he also formally admitted responsibility for the 9/ll attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia.
KSM, captured in 2003 in Pakistan, was subjected by the CIA to waterboarding and other “extreme interrogation” techniques, according to current and former CIA officials.
Want to see some more ?
arclightzero said,
November 2, 2007 at 11:41 am
The problem with gauging the success of torture is that success is very subjective. Besides, we only hear about a very small fraction of what actually happens. Besides, if torture didn’t work, military personnel wouldn’t have to go through SERE school to learn how to resist torture. But as we learned, you can only resist for so long - nobody can hold out indefinately. Even those who are truly prepared to die cannot resist indefinately - especially when the torture isn’t going to result in death. There are many ways to make somebody crack. If they don’t fear death, then you go at them psychologically, or you use drugs or any number of methods that don’t involve the threat of death or physical harm.
I’m not going to repeat Micky here, as I agree with him on verifying information and confirming what you can. part of a successful interrogation would be the threat that if they are not telling the truth and the verification fails, you will be back and the torture will make the last session feel like a walk in the park. The liklihood of lying diminishes when you know that you will be getting it worse if you are caught lying. You’re better off just staying quiet as long as you can and hoping they give up before you crack.
As far as confirming what you can, anybody who has been through an effective police investigation understands how things work - especially if you have more than one person and conflicting stories. You can get what you need if you know what you’re doing. If you can confirm what you can and cross-reference things against other people, eventually you will get the whole story, especially if the threat of additional torture hangs over you if you are found to by lying or contradicting other stories or what is already confirmed.
It’s crappy and it sucks but if it works, it’s hard to argue against it. Sadly, most of the arguments against it aren’t due to the fact that it doesn’t work. Most people who claim it doesn’t work have no idea what they’re talking about. Instead, they are much more focused on the human rights aspects of it. If all we know about torture is what we are told by the media and supposed “victims” of torture, we only have one side of things. The people who know the whole truth are not going to speak up.
Here’s an interesting little article about torture and a little history and insight:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20020429.asp
ChenZhen said,
November 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm
We were able to disrupt plots because of actionable intel gained from waterboarding KSM? Torturing KSM saved lives?
/I didn’t know that.
micky2 said,
November 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm
He says the Sears Tower was to be destroyed by “burning a few fuel or oil tanker trunks beneath it or around it.”
KSM also says he was planning attacks on American military vessels in the Straights of Hormuz, Gibraltar and the Port of Singapore, along with a plan to bomb and destroy the Panama Canal.
Also on KSM’s plot list: U.S. embassies, Israeli embassies, Israeli passenger jets at the Bangkok Airport, U.S. targets in South Korea, NATO headquarters, U.S. nuclear power plants and “an American oil company owned by the Jewish former Secrreatry of State, Henry Kissinger, on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia.”
Let me tell you something Mr Yin&Yan.
When guys like you start getting disengenuous and pulling this crap you only expose yourself as pathetic little appeasing apologistic assholes. And if you want to go ahead and say I’m being undiplomatic I dont give a shit.
How dare you sit there and say ” well, it hasnt proven to save any lives yet”
Thats about as fucking ridiculous as saying ” how do know the flu shot worked? nobody died of the flu.
His interogation gave a treasure trove of evidence leading to the aresset and capture of umerous terrorist who were involved with other acts of terrorism or planning others.
Also.
In a speech on Dec. 11, CIA director George J. Tenet said that interrogations overseas have yielded significant returns recently. He calculated that worldwide efforts to capture or kill terrorists had eliminated about one-third of the al Qaeda leadership. “Almost half of our successes against senior al Qaeda members has come in recent months,” he said.
Many of these successes have come as a result of information gained during interrogations. The capture of al Qaeda leaders Ramzi Binalshibh in Pakistan, Omar al-Faruq in Indonesia, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in Kuwait and Muhammad al Darbi in Yemen were all partly the result of information gained during interrogations, according to U.S. intelligence and national security officials. All four remain under CIA control.
Time, rather than technique, has produced the most helpful information, several national security and intelligence officials said. Using its global computer database, the CIA is able to quickly check leads from captives in one country with information divulged by captives in another.
“We know so much more about them now than we did a year ago — the personalities, how the networks are established, what they think are important targets, how they think we will react,” said retired Army general Wayne Downing, the Bush administration’s deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism until he resigned in June.
You can bet good money that getting all these assholes off the street and out of the loop we saved a lot of lives.
But I’m you sure wouldnt take that wager because you choose to ask the assinine question ” well how can you prove it saved lives”
Thats just fucking stupid.
ChenZhen said,
November 2, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Well, it’s all a moot point anyway. According to Bush, we don’t torture, so….
micky2 said,
November 2, 2007 at 9:35 pm
What Bush says is completly side from the issue.
Here, turn around so I can hand your ass back to you.
viciemonkey said,
November 3, 2007 at 8:34 am
Hey Chen,
instead of trying to change the subject, try READING the words. You might learn something. Great responses Micky! I am continually blown-away with your research and insight. Nice job with a messy subject arclight. There is no polite way to say that some humans deserve less-than-humane treatment. Only through the choices they have made and the lives that they lead can these judgements be made. Not easily either. Live a life where people are made happier by-and-large by your existance. It’s not rocket surgery.
ChenZhen said,
November 3, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Let’s revisit my statement above:
You then listed the statements from Bush admin. officials that interrogation techniques have gleaned intel that disrupted plots led to the capture of terrorists. Techniques that the admin. obviously doesn’t consider torture, as implied by the statement that I linked (and linking isn’t that hard, ya know).
So, I’m left to conclude that either a) you agree with Bush, which make your examples invalid to my request or b) you disagree with Bush, the examples cited were indeed instances where torture provided a positive outcome. The problem with (b), of course, is that you’re accepting those statements as credible in one respect (positive outcome) but not in another (weren’t torture).
In any case, hardly “side” the issue.
Arm Jerker J. said,
November 4, 2007 at 10:59 am
I have to ask first…did waterboarding spark this post, Arc?
arclightzero said,
November 4, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The problem here is not with Bush, the Bush administration or what is or is not supposedly done. What concerns me is the fact that I don’t think we should put ourselves in a position where we firmly say that “we will never do this or that” because it opens us up to all sorts of problems if we end up doing it. It’s just like everything else that we supposedly stand for. Every time there is a bump, there are lawsuits and protests and major pains in the ass.
What happens if we firmly take a stand and say that we will never torture no matter what and then one of those impossible hypothetical situations arises? Do we break our own vow and torture for the information we need or do we just let things happen and allow innocent people to die? It’s a hell of a predicament. Not to mention the fact that when you firmly swear that you will never do something, you open up the door for all sorts of trouble. What happens when somebody claims that being yelled at is torture? Or what happens if somebody claims to be claustrophobic and that being put in a cell is torture? Do we allow lawsuits and dirty lawyers to tie up the legal system and the government every time somebody claims torture? Because you know damn well that is what will happen if we outright ban torture and swear up and down that we won’t ever use it.
It’s a silly recipe for a major headache… And all so people can feel good about themselves and think that they are civilized people.
arclightzero said,
November 4, 2007 at 3:00 pm
and yes, AJJ, the waterboarding issue is what spawned this topic… namely because I am tired of hearing about it
micky2 said,
November 4, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I can only relate this to life really.
In 12th grade I had a friend named Mike fresh off the boat from Ca.
We were one of about 7 white boys in the whole school.The rest was an etnic Pacific blend. Hawaiians,Samoans, Tahitian, Japanese, Filippino etc…
During lunch everyone would just kind of loaf around and cruise the school on foot.
We had group of punk glue sniffers that would bump my buddy mike every time we passed them. Mike started getting pissed and I told him to bump the guy back.
The next time we passed these punks Mike went up to them and tried to discuss it rationally. These guys just looked him for about a second and then kicked the shit of him without even listening.
I told Mike to put up his hands and I couldnt believe what he said next, he said; “hell no , I dont want to fight!” At that point these guys figured I did so they came after me. I have training, I hurt a couple guys. We went to the office, got scolded and were told to shake hands, and that would be that. ( yea right)
The next day I walked past all these characters and they were acting as if they were my buddies, they were calling me over and being un believably nice.
Just then a teacher grabbed me and threw me in a classroom and locked the door. She came back about 5 minutes later and told me to never go near those guys again and then produced a hammer shaft that had razor blades pounded into the end of it. It was going to be used on me by these guys.
A couple days later, same thing happened again. This time I went and broke a chair and had a leg in each hand and ripped these guys all a few stitches.
They knew from that day on that even if there was more of them than me that at least one of them was going to get hurt and it would be up to me who that was.
They never fucked with me again.
We need to be able to fight when we have to.
These goody two shoe assholes who want to sit down and smoke peace pipes and shit have never been confronted with a mentallity that does care to or know how to engage in civil negotiations and agreements.
These guys DONT WANT TO WORK IT OUT.Whats not understood is that no matter what we do it wont change anything. They want to kill us, plain and simple. And the sooner everyone realizes this the quicker we can kick their asses and the fight will end. And thus alot more lives can be saved.
Our threat is a movement, not a country. We have rules of engagement in accordance with countries, Int. law, Geneva conv. I dont see how they apply to gangs spread out across the globe.
Call me radical, I dont care, I dont think I am just for fighting with everything I have.
micky2 said,
November 4, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Sorry folks, it was the 7th grade and we were 12.
The kinda crap that I mentioned was why I never went to high school.
arclightzero said,
November 9, 2007 at 2:31 pm
In a scary twist to this story, Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd posted some disturbing stuff over at Huffington Post regarding torture and KSM. Apparently Dodd thinks that KSM has “taken the moral high ground from the US…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/08/sen-dodd-khalid-sheik-mohammed-has-taken-the-moral-high-ground-from-the-us/
Is this what we should be hearing from elected officials and people who are seeking the highest seat in the United States?
smac27 said,
January 6, 2008 at 9:12 am
I have read many of the posts here and find them to be very well written. I find it somewhat unfortunate that most of the debate revolves around “act/react”. I do not consider myself liberal or conservative and find that those who do feel they must fall on one side of the issue or the other. Issues such as torture are extremely complicated because of the human factor. We want information about those who intend to harm us. That is a granted. The real question is how do we get that information? I read micky2’s story of almost being slashed up by a bunch of a-holes. His reaction is one response. Going to the principle or the vice principle and telling them that these people are dangerous and need to be dealt with and then camping out until they do something about it is another. This ,however, is seen as the “weak” option. We must display our ability to be as much of an a-hole (no offense micky) as the person iniating the problems so that no one will eff with us.
Police work.
Going through the proper channels.
That is the mark of a civilized society. We have created rules for ourselves. We cannot throw them away as a reaction to someone who does not follow those rules. This will provide those who want to do us harm with the fuel they need to continue doing this harm.