Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Upchurch]

Well, of course they're the good guys to people who want an Islamic caliphate. Everything's relative. If I believed in one of the more extreme variants of Islam, I would think they were the good guys too. But, you know what? I don't. I like Western culture; I like freedom of speech and thought and education; and I like bacon ... a lot. So, they're enemies of mine. End of story.

So, the ends justify the means, do they? It's okay for the US to use torture because you like your bacon?

Is that how you justify the use of torture?

 

[jimbob]

Oh, we can win this war, and we are winning, if by winning we mean continuing to enjoy freedom and a high standard of living. Just as Israel is winning even though all the usual idiots always say they're losing. The Islamists do not have their caliphate, nor will they, and I will continue to enjoy my bacon with my eggs. Ok, I'll admit that I find going through a security line at the airport to be pretty annoying, but that's an own-goal as near as I can tell.

To preserve the principles of modern Western democracy, the primacy of laws and judicial process - it is vital to traduce them?

 

[anglolawyer]

snip
Oh, we can win this war, and we are winning, if by winning we mean continuing to enjoy freedom and a high standard of living. Just as Israel is winning even though all the usual idiots always say they're losing. The Islamists do not have their caliphate, nor will they, and I will continue to enjoy my bacon with my eggs. Ok, I'll admit that I find going through a security line at the airport to be pretty annoying, but that's an own-goal as near as I can tell.

There is a tribe of cannibals somewhere in the Amazon. You're winning against them too by this measure.

America should be able to sustain its freedom and high standard of living without breaking its international treaty obligations and torturing people. I suggest you build fewer carriers and invest more in real intelligence and diplomacy.

 

[sunmaster14]

So, the ends justify the means, do they? It's okay for the US to use torture because you like your bacon?

Actually, I would kill for a BLT right now. I admit not everyone would agree.

Is that how you justify the use of torture?

No, I was addressing anglolawyer's point about ISIS and al Qaeda maybe being the good guys.

 

[johnny karate]

So, the ends justify the means, do they? It's okay for the US to use torture because you like your bacon?

Is that how you justify the use of torture?

Torture for bacon = Totally cool.

Mandate for health insurance = TYRANNY!

Got love those conservative values.

 

[sunmaster14]

There is a tribe of cannibals somewhere in the Amazon. You're winning against them too by this measure.

America should be able to sustain its freedom and high standard of living without breaking its international treaty obligations and torturing people. I suggest you build fewer carriers and invest more in real intelligence and diplomacy.

Agreed, in general. But holding yourself to higher moral standards is sometimes a luxury that only the strong and secure can enjoy. As a threat grows, our instinct for self-preservation will drive a decline in our moral standards. And in the end, the losers will be branded as war criminals, and the winners will be praised as heroes, regardless of how similar their actions were. WWII is a case in point. I recognize the hypocrisy, but there are far worse things in the world than hypocrisy.

 

[Upchurch]

No

Do you plan on attempting to back your claim that torture is sometimes justified?

 

[anglolawyer]

Agreed, in general. But holding yourself to higher moral standards is sometimes a luxury that only the strong and secure can enjoy. As a threat grows, our instinct for self-preservation will drive a decline in our moral standards. And in the end, the losers will be branded as war criminals, and the winners will be praised as heroes, regardless of how similar their actions were. WWII is a case in point. I recognize the hypocrisy, but there are far worse things in the world than hypocrisy.

WW2 is not a case in point. Only one side was engaged in genocide and armed conquest. Carpet bombing their cities was not great but it was at least underpinned by some strategic thinking, plus they started it.

The US used to be good. Now it isn't anymore. Maybe this is inevitable but at least let's not pretend.

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you plan on attempting to back your claim that torture is sometimes justified?

I refer you back to our discussion in the Condoleezza Rice thread. I don't like to rehash old stuff. My views haven't changed since then, and I don't think I have anything to add.

Well, maybe this. If the physical punishment of a human being lies on a continuum (ranging from restraint in handcuffs on one end to the most grisly torture at the other end), then if some level of punishment can be justified by a social goal, it seems possible to show that a more important social goal would justify at least a slightly harsher level of punishment. I think that as long as there is no cap on the social utility that could be gained from a punishment, one could theoretically find a scenario which justifies any level of physical punishment. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, and as anglolawyer pointed out here, our society uses physical punishment routinely to affect human behavior. In fact, all of our laws, ultimately, are backed by the threat of physical punishment.

So, if restraint in handcuffs is justified in some circumstances, perhaps tugging on them to cause a little bit of pain compliance is justified in more extreme circumstances. Or tasering. Or putting someone in an armbar. Or punching them in the face. And on and on. I think a civilized society would not inflict pain gratuitously, but rather only to enforce compliance. Does such compliance include divulging information which could potentially save innocent lives? Maybe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

WW2 is not a case in point. Only one side was engaged in genocide and armed conquest. Carpet bombing their cities was not great but it was at least underpinned by some strategic thinking, plus they started it.

The US used to be good. Now it isn't anymore. Maybe this is inevitable but at least let's not pretend.

So what side do you put Russia on? They were at least as bad as Italy.

 

[jimbob]

So what side do you put Russia on? They were at least as bad as Italy.

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

 

[Upchurch]

I refer you back to our discussion in the Condoleezza Rice thread. I don't like to rehash old stuff. My views haven't changed since then, and I don't think I have anything to add.

All you did then was present a dire "ticking time bomb" situation with an appeal to emotion. The solution to a ticking time bomb situation is to be able to get reliable information and quickly. Your old stuff neither demonstrates that torture results in reliable information or that it results in quickly getting reliable information.

So, you are not going to back your claim then. As Hitchens said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

I dismiss your claim.

 

[anglolawyer]

So what side do you put Russia on? They were at least as bad as Italy.

The good side. Self defence and all that. Marquess of Queensberry rules didn't apply on that front what with a master race tramping about and subjugating the untermensch. I realise there are some, ahem, issues over Finland, Poland etc but even so I don't accept sunmaster's idea that both sides are equally bad in all wars.

Coming back to now, the war on terror was a neo-con project to exploit 9/11 as fortuitously as possible, weapons testing in Iraq, evening scores, ham-fistedly trying to mould a pliant puppet state there, screwing around with oil, as usual, breaking laws willy nilly and untruthfully passing it off as some kind of crusade. That was bad. Consult the ordinary, secular and/or moderate, civilised Iraqis (and now Syrians) caught up in this outrageous and extreme abuse of power. No wonder everybody ended up hating the US and wanting to chop their heads off.

 

[3point14]

The good side. Self defence and all that. Marquess of Queensberry rules didn't apply on that front what with a master race tramping about and subjugating the untermensch. I realise there are some, ahem, issues over Finland, Poland etc but even so I don't accept sunmaster's idea that both sides are equally bad in all wars.

Coming back to now, the war on terror was a neo-con project to exploit 9/11 as fortuitously as possible, weapons testing in Iraq, evening scores, ham-fistedly trying to mould a pliant puppet state there, screwing around with oil, as usual, breaking laws willy nilly and untruthfully passing it off as some kind of crusade. That was bad. Consult the ordinary, secular and/or moderate, civilised Iraqis (and now Syrians) caught up in this outrageous and extreme abuse of power. No wonder everybody ended up hating the US and wanting to chop their heads off.

You mean it's not because they hate Freedom(tm)?

Also, once again, please don't forget Teflon Tony.

 

[jimbob]

The good side. Self defence and all that. Marquess of Queensberry rules didn't apply on that front what with a master race tramping about and subjugating the untermensch. I realise there are some, ahem, issues over Finland, Poland etc but even so I don't accept sunmaster's idea that both sides are equally bad in all wars.

Coming back to now, the war on terror was a neo-con project to exploit 9/11 as fortuitously as possible, weapons testing in Iraq, evening scores, ham-fistedly trying to mould a pliant puppet state there, screwing around with oil, as usual, breaking laws willy nilly and untruthfully passing it off as some kind of crusade. That was bad. Consult the ordinary, secular and/or moderate, civilised Iraqis (and now Syrians) caught up in this outrageous and extreme abuse of power. No wonder everybody ended up hating the US and wanting to chop their heads off.

I'm more with Churchill on this - as you probably could guess from my quote.

Stalin was an evil monster - quite possibly as bad a Hitler, but because he was attacked by Nazi Germany he was a vital ally resource in the fight against the Axis powers.

I would suggest that the Axis powers were a significantly greater threat to the US than a few thousand terrorists. They also had the potential to have grown stronger and into an "existential threat" if they hadn't been defeated.

 

[anglolawyer]

You mean it's not because they hate Freedom(tm)?

Also, once again, please don't forget Teflon Tony.

We are invading to find WMD. The UN inspectors are too slow. Right! Done that. However, it will take a year to find the WMD (WTF - you now control the entire country!). Sorry, no WMD after all but they did have some in 1982 (we know because we supplied them or, if not, looked away because, in those days, Saddam was a good guy). Anyway, we destroyed the entire country even though it was totally unnecessary to do so given that a single division basically just drove to Baghdad, so we did find out our weapons actually work and there will be those who benefit from orders for replacements. It's an ill wind and all that. And we found the evil Saddam who tortured people in Abu Ghraib (oh wait ... ). We dismantled the army and replaced it with one that runs away at the sound of gunfire. Now the country is the basket case we intended it to be. Syria is next. Never mind ISIS. They are containable and a source of endlessly useful propaganda for all the fat folks back home whenever they manage to lift their eyes from their burger and fries.

 

[Wudang]

If it was because they were fighting a war, why were they so concerned to hide their activities from Colin Powell (as I read from extracts)? Could it be because he was experienced enough to understand that torture is counterproductive? Or what?

 

[RandFan]

If torture were effective, it's not, it would still be immoral but perhaps justifiable in some extreme circumstances. The thing is that it's not effective so we don't even need to have that discussion.

Does torture work?

Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent with considerable experience interrogating al-Qaeda operatives, pointed out in Time that: When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless.

He isn't alone in this assessment – a number of former intelligence people have expressed similar views, and his words are echoed by the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation, which suggests that: …the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

 

[anglolawyer]

If torture were effective, it's not, it would still be immoral but perhaps justifiable in some extreme circumstances. The thing is that it's not effective so we don't even need to have that discussion.

Does torture work?

Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent with considerable experience interrogating al-Qaeda operatives, pointed out in Time that: When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless.

He isn't alone in this assessment – a number of former intelligence people have expressed similar views, and his words are echoed by the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation, which suggests that: …the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

According to Cheney, the torture enabled the US to find out who was behind 9/11 (funny, I thought they went up in smoke on the day). Fair enough. When do the trials start?

 

[Garrette]

We are invading to find WMD. The UN inspectors are too slow. Right! Done that. However, it will take a year to find the WMD (WTF - you now control the entire country!). Sorry, no WMD after all but they did have some in 1982 (we know because we supplied them or, if not, looked away because, in those days, Saddam was a good guy). Anyway, we destroyed the entire country even though it was totally unnecessary to do so given that a single division basically just drove to Baghdad, so we did find out our weapons actually work and there will be those who benefit from orders for replacements. It's an ill wind and all that. And we found the evil Saddam who tortured people in Abu Ghraib (oh wait ... ). We dismantled the army and replaced it with one that runs away at the sound of gunfire. Now the country is the basket case we intended it to be. Syria is next. Never mind ISIS. They are containable and a source of endlessly useful propaganda for all the fat folks back home whenever they manage to lift their eyes from their burger and fries.

While I nearly always gain a valuably different perspective from your posts, I think that you usually go too far in your America-is-Now-Bad posts. That being said, this is an excellent post.