• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

In defence of torture

So the CIA lied about its use of torture of Al Qaeda suspects. No thread at ISF, though, so obviously not that important. Never mind, Americans, you can sleep easy with this cut out and keep defence of torture:

1 it happened in the past so it doesn't count
2 its exposure now proves how open and honest American processes are
3 it was necessary anyway to obtain vital information
4 it wasn't really torture
5 we're the US - what are you gonna do about it?
 
Upchurch said:
But why? There are methods that work better without becoming a monster.
Click to expand...

Work better at what?

If the purpose is to get information for reasons of security, then of course there are. It's been known since forever that torture isn't very effective. Torture victims tend to say anything to get the torture to stop, and it's usually worse than no information.

Furthermore, it's been decades since dopamine-blockers have been available. They are much more effective than physical torture, are far cheaper, and work much more quickly.

However, since this is all well known and has been known for some time, at least within government agencies, and torture is still done, then we must necessarily conclude that the purpose of torture is for something other than reasons of security.

I suspect that it is simply a recreational activity. This is far more consistent with what we know from, for example, Abu Ghraib.

Still, whenever I say this, people become aghast and start calling me names. There appears to be a strong pull toward needing to think that torture is for something good, or noble, or whatever. There must be a reason for this. That meta-behavior around torture must serve some personal or social purpose.

The most obvious would be that it fills the desire to think, "We are the good guys." There are all sorts of bits of rhetoric. For example, people tell stories like, "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture?"

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. Now, I suppose it's possible to believe that torture works, but no attempt is ever made to support this. There's never any argument to the effect of "if you torture, you are more likely to find where the bomb is, than if you don't" which would be required in order to make this an argument. There also isn't any "it is impossible that torture will give you misinformation that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time," which would have to be argued because of all the evidence that torture does this all the damn time. That is, if an argument were intended.

(Note that the Nicholas Cage film Next has an interesting take on this. It is from a Philip K. Dick story called, "The Golden Man," but this part of the very loose adaptation is original. It may not be the greatest adaptation of Dick, but it is interesting.)

From this, there's a seemingly plausible idea. People enjoy torture, but the aren't willing to be thought of as the sort of people who enjoy torture. So they make up rationalizations. They assume that it does good, that is, torture is better than not. They don't actually argue this but rely on others' assuming it. The assumption leads to the idea of a moral versus practical tradeoff. This is the sort of thing that philosophers of ethics like to assume, and they spend a lot of time trying to teach this. Philosophers of ethics are idiots, of course, at least in this respect, but not a lot of people are arrogant enough to point it out.

However, this seemingly plausible idea does not work. We know this because even people who oppose torture use an assumption that it works. They may, of course, argue that it doesn't work, and they often do. Still, at the same time, they respond to rhetoric as if there were a tacit assumption. They permit the framing of the question to be posed in terms of ethics versus practicality, which necessarily assumes that torture cannot be dismissed on pure practicality.

If one could argue against torture on pure practicality, it has a number of advantages. It's all true and well supported by plain facts. This is not very important for reasons I discuss later. But more importantly, if you don't introduce ethics, then the opponent will have a harder time introducing it for moral jiggery-pokery. Thus, you cut out a huge class of arguments for torture, which are bogus arguments anyway.

So we're left with a conundrum. Why is this?

My best guess at present is that most opponents of torture, who tend to be liberal, are also enthusiasts of Cartesian/Enlightenment rationalism, which is known to be flat-out wrong. Rationalism was, of course, necessary for moving from monarchy and other privileged systems to democracy and republics. If people are rational, of course, then it follows that they can govern themselves without a king or a dictator. If everyone has the same rational mechanism, all they need are the facts, and then they will come up with the same conclusion. This is an effective counter to the idea that special people are necessary.

It is not the first time a completely wrong and stupid idea was used to justify something good. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of kings and despots, enlightened or not. But a fixation on and faith for these obsolete ideas also causes problems, such as losing elections by the droves. If you present programs to the public, they overwhelmingly approve of the progressive positions, but they also usually vote for people who intend to stop them. The reason is this assumption of rationalism, which simply does not work.

Conservatives are much smarter about human psychology, and they've been working on it, finding effective solutions since the Powell memo. It's long past time for progressives to get a clue.

There is another possibility, that progressives wish to appear "warm" or "compassionate" or something, and bringing in ethics helps them do it. The desire to appear that way is so strong that they are willing to do it even if the cost is bad, even up to killing people. This seems consistent with the behavior of many progressives; they really care if they are liked and loved, even if it hurts the people they are advocating for. Much of the progressive rhetoric currently in resurgence about racism and the police is consistent with this.

Still, I'm not sure which it is, or maybe some other reason. In any event, it's a conundrum.
 
anglolawyer said:
So the CIA lied about its use of torture of Al Qaeda suspects. No thread at ISF, though, so obviously not that important. Never mind, Americans, you can sleep easy with this cut out and keep defence of torture:

1 it happened in the past so it doesn't count
Click to expand...

Should not a society learn from miss steps

2 its exposure now proves how open and honest American processes are
Click to expand...

Knowing about it, makes it okay?

3 it was necessary anyway to obtain vital information
Click to expand...

Evidence?

4 it wasn't really torture
Click to expand...

Try it - so how ya go

5 we're the US - what are you gonna do about it?
Click to expand...

The US (as we are often reminded) is a nation of laws. If a law has been broken those accountable need to be brought forward. If such laws dont exist legislators need to move to create them to stop a repeat of what happened here
 
timhau said:
2. I challenge you to find a nation that airs its dirty laundry as openly as the US.
Click to expand...

Canada - Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Gomery Inquiry, etc.

I think you'll find that most countries with a multi-party system and a free-press do so, you may not hear so much about them outside of that nation state but they exist. Many of us outside the US hear about the US's scandals because, as a major power issues etc in the US can have an effect in our countries.
 
epepke said:
Work better at what?

If the purpose is to get information for reasons of security, then of course there are. It's been known since forever that torture isn't very effective. Torture victims tend to say anything to get the torture to stop, and it's usually worse than no information.

Furthermore, it's been decades since dopamine-blockers have been available. They are much more effective than physical torture, are far cheaper, and work much more quickly.

However, since this is all well known and has been known for some time, at least within government agencies, and torture is still done, then we must necessarily conclude that the purpose of torture is for something other than reasons of security.

I suspect that it is simply a recreational activity. This is far more consistent with what we know from, for example, Abu Ghraib.

Still, whenever I say this, people become aghast and start calling me names. There appears to be a strong pull toward needing to think that torture is for something good, or noble, or whatever. There must be a reason for this. That meta-behavior around torture must serve some personal or social purpose.

The most obvious would be that it fills the desire to think, "We are the good guys." There are all sorts of bits of rhetoric. For example, people tell stories like, "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture?"

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. Now, I suppose it's possible to believe that torture works, but no attempt is ever made to support this. There's never any argument to the effect of "if you torture, you are more likely to find where the bomb is, than if you don't" which would be required in order to make this an argument. There also isn't any "it is impossible that torture will give you misinformation that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time," which would have to be argued because of all the evidence that torture does this all the damn time. That is, if an argument were intended.

(Note that the Nicholas Cage film Next has an interesting take on this. It is from a Philip K. Dick story called, "The Golden Man," but this part of the very loose adaptation is original. It may not be the greatest adaptation of Dick, but it is interesting.)

From this, there's a seemingly plausible idea. People enjoy torture, but the aren't willing to be thought of as the sort of people who enjoy torture. So they make up rationalizations. They assume that it does good, that is, torture is better than not. They don't actually argue this but rely on others' assuming it. The assumption leads to the idea of a moral versus practical tradeoff. This is the sort of thing that philosophers of ethics like to assume, and they spend a lot of time trying to teach this. Philosophers of ethics are idiots, of course, at least in this respect, but not a lot of people are arrogant enough to point it out.

However, this seemingly plausible idea does not work. We know this because even people who oppose torture use an assumption that it works. They may, of course, argue that it doesn't work, and they often do. Still, at the same time, they respond to rhetoric as if there were a tacit assumption. They permit the framing of the question to be posed in terms of ethics versus practicality, which necessarily assumes that torture cannot be dismissed on pure practicality.

If one could argue against torture on pure practicality, it has a number of advantages. It's all true and well supported by plain facts. This is not very important for reasons I discuss later. But more importantly, if you don't introduce ethics, then the opponent will have a harder time introducing it for moral jiggery-pokery. Thus, you cut out a huge class of arguments for torture, which are bogus arguments anyway.

So we're left with a conundrum. Why is this?

My best guess at present is that most opponents of torture, who tend to be liberal, are also enthusiasts of Cartesian/Enlightenment rationalism, which is known to be flat-out wrong. Rationalism was, of course, necessary for moving from monarchy and other privileged systems to democracy and republics. If people are rational, of course, then it follows that they can govern themselves without a king or a dictator. If everyone has the same rational mechanism, all they need are the facts, and then they will come up with the same conclusion. This is an effective counter to the idea that special people are necessary.

It is not the first time a completely wrong and stupid idea was used to justify something good. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of kings and despots, enlightened or not. But a fixation on and faith for these obsolete ideas also causes problems, such as losing elections by the droves. If you present programs to the public, they overwhelmingly approve of the progressive positions, but they also usually vote for people who intend to stop them. The reason is this assumption of rationalism, which simply does not work.

Conservatives are much smarter about human psychology, and they've been working on it, finding effective solutions since the Powell memo. It's long past time for progressives to get a clue.

There is another possibility, that progressives wish to appear "warm" or "compassionate" or something, and bringing in ethics helps them do it. The desire to appear that way is so strong that they are willing to do it even if the cost is bad, even up to killing people. This seems consistent with the behavior of many progressives; they really care if they are liked and loved, even if it hurts the people they are advocating for. Much of the progressive rhetoric currently in resurgence about racism and the police is consistent with this.

Still, I'm not sure which it is, or maybe some other reason. In any event, it's a conundrum.
Click to expand...

From a purely practical position, I'd say that ethics are important. Only the most deluded would think that whatever battle currently being fought will be the final one. If you want helpful cooperation from populations in the future, it helps to be seen to be the good guys. It does also help to be seen to be strong.

I agree about the effectiveness of torture - Europe's witchcraft trials should be sufficient to show that people will eventually say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear.
 
DavidJames said:
Because part of our exceptionalism is when we do bad stuff we hide it.
Click to expand...


To paraphrase Richard Nixon - "When the United States does it, it's not bad stuff".

Our enemies use torture. We perform enhanced interrogations. They're totally different. You can tell from how they're spelled.


More seriously, I'm reminded of the U2 spy plane incident, which I've seen described as the first time the American public had to admit to themselves that the President would lie to them.
 
Border Reiver said:
Eloquent.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Fixed.



There is no excuse, no legitimate reason for this to have happened. Those responsible should be brought up on charges and feel the full weight of the law that they ignored. I could not be more angry that they have dragged the US down like this.
 
Having defended "enhanced interrogation" techniques on this forum I can say now that those who argued against me were right and I was wrong.

I have been on both sides of the issue and I understand how easy it is for humans to support inhumanity out of fear or a sense of retribution. I love my country. I'm a patriot and likely always will be. I'm ashamed that a nation that prides itself on liberty, democracy and due process would subject human beings to such actions.
 
RandFan,

I respect your open mindendness.
 
marplots said:
"This will make them hate us."
"They already hate us."
"This will make them hate us more!"
"Um... any chance we could do things that might make them hate us less then?"
"Don't think so. We pretty much like doing all the things we do now."
"Um... I think I'm starting to dislike us too."
Click to expand...

soZNnc.png
 
I was very pleasantly surprised by Senator McCain's capacity for candor and a moral stand today. I really hope this highly professional and eloquent speech is motivated not only by his own experience with torture, but also by a deep conviction about the basic justice we must take pride in as a country. We cannot continue to be a nation of vengeful tactics and policies or we will become as hateful as our enemies.
 
When the shoe is on the other foot.

If you have not seen Hanoi Hilton I strongly recommend it. It details the torture and degradation Americans suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese.

eBzQxi.jpg


The movie did not do well at the box office. It's no Papillon but worth watching. It's currently on Netflix for streaming.
 
It's worth noting that since the United States had not declared war on North Vietnam the government of North Vietnam did not view American soldiers as prisoners of war and therefore were not entitled to rights accorded under the Geneva Convention.

Sound familiar?
 
Dick Cheney weighs in on the report, which he hasn't actually read.

Mr. Cheney, who was a vocal champion of those techniques after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has never accepted the widespread description of them as torture, said he had not read the report that the Intelligence Committee is expected to release on Tuesday. But from news reports about it, he said he had heard nothing to change his mind about the wisdom and effectiveness of the program.
“What I keep hearing out there is they portray this as a rogue operation and the agency was way out of bounds and then they lied about it,” he said in a telephone interview. “I think that’s all a bunch of hooey. The program was authorized. The agency did not want to proceed without authorization, and it was also reviewed legally by the Justice Department before they undertook the program.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom