Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Tony Stark]

Common sense is not the same as "unquestioned belief" at all. It is knowledge that most humans learn from life experience, almost without knowing they're learning it. Common sense is not always accurate or correct, but humans are actually pretty good at adapting to reality, so common sense tends to be useful.

The idea that the prospect of reward or punishment can affect behavior is obvious. We see hundreds of examples of it in our own lives every day, and our entire society runs on the concept. What people like you would have us believe is that if the prospect of punishment is too intense, the entire incentive structure breaks down. Call me a skeptic.

That people being being tortured will tell torturers things other than the truth in order to stop the torture is also common sense.

 

[RandFan]

Having started threads in defense of torture on this forum, if I had found evidence that it worked I might still defend it. I'd like to think that is not true. I don't know. Truth is, try as I might, all available evidence that I could find was that it is counter productive.

Self-serving claims are not evidence that it works.

 

[sunmaster14]

That people being being tortured will tell torturers things other than the truth in order to stop the torture is also common sense.

Yes, but if they know the truth, why wouldn't they tell that first? After all, if your interrogators are able to disprove something you told them, it's likely to result in prolonged punishment. The truth is unlikely to be disproven. If it is verified, it is likely even to result in a reward (e.g. an end to abuse).

 

[DavidJames]

Common sense is not the same as "unquestioned belief" at all. It is knowledge that most humans learn from life experience, almost without knowing they're learning it. Common sense is not always accurate or correct, but humans are actually pretty good at adapting to reality, so common sense tends to be useful.... Call me a skeptic.

A textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yes, but if they know the truth, why wouldn't they tell that first? After all, if your interrogators are able to disprove something you told them, it's likely to result in prolonged punishment. The truth is unlikely to be disproven. If it is verified, it is likely even to result in a reward (e.g. an end to abuse).

If you were a terrorist that knew things don't you think that you would at least at first lie in an attempt to protect your terrorist group?

If you were somebody who didn't really know things, you don't think you would lie in order to stop the turture if that's what it took?

 

[Tricky]

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

I know it is not necessarily correct just because a founding father said it, but I think this makes it pretty clear what the father of our country would think about Dick Cheney.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, but if they know the truth, why wouldn't they tell that first? After all, if your interrogators are able to disprove something you told them, it's likely to result in prolonged punishment. The truth is unlikely to be disproven. If it is verified, it is likely even to result in a reward (e.g. an end to abuse).

It doesn't matter what you reason how people would behave under torture when there is plenty of evidence as to how they actually behave. People have broken under torture and said what they thought the torturer wanted to hear.

After 9/11 this included "confessions" that they were senior in Al Quaeda and it had been involved in getting WMDs from Saddam Hussein. I think we can safely say that was a false confession that gave false intelligence.

This is entirely in line with the experience of history.

 

[Tony Stark]

I remember reading about a American POW in Japan "confessing" that the United States had hundreds of atomic bombs. Completely untrue, of course.

 

[ehcks]

Yes, but if they know the truth, why wouldn't they tell that first?

What if they know nothing?

How do you know they know what you want to know before you start interrogating them?

And why are we still talking about the efficacy of torture? You just don't do it. Ever. To anyone, for any reason. No.

 

[sunmaster14]

If you were a terrorist that knew things don't you think that you would at least at first lie in an attempt to protect your terrorist group?

Yes, of course. But why wouldn't you do the same thing if being interrogated by standard methods?

If you were somebody who didn't really know things, you don't think you would lie in order to stop the turture if that's what it took?

Yes, of course. And for each lie, an interrogator would have to judge whether it was credible enough to act on. It would start with a plausibility analysis and a crosscheck against other things that were known to be true. I don't see why this is any different from a standard interrogation. You don't think people lie when they're not being tortured? Lying in a consistent way is actually quite difficult and requires intense cognitive effort. You don't think it would be easier to do if you're not in fear and in pain?

Also, let me give you a scenario where torture should work. Suppose there is a terrorist who is not particularly ideological and would otherwise be willing to spill the beans on other terrorists, except that he is afraid of reprisals from his former colleagues. As long as he fears his former colleagues more than he fears his interrogators, he won't talk. As soon as the situation is flipped (i.e. he fears his interrogators more) then it makes sense for him to talk. In fact, the more information he gives, the better it is for him, because it increases the probability that his former colleagues are captured or killed, in which case he no longer would have to fear reprisals.

 

[sunmaster14]

It doesn't matter what you reason how people would behave under torture when there is plenty of evidence as to how they actually behave. People have broken under torture and said what they thought the torturer wanted to hear.

What a good interrogator really wants to hear is the truth. A good interrogator wouldn't even tip his hand to the detainee as to what he wants to hear. Also, I keep hearing about this so-called evidence that torture doesn't work, and yet I've never seen anything but appeals to this emotional idea that people will say anything to avoid torture. If you can't see how obviously weak that argument is, then I submit to you that the idea that torture doesn't work has become an article of faith for you, and not one of logical analysis.

After 9/11 this included "confessions" that they were senior in Al Quaeda and it had been involved in getting WMDs from Saddam Hussein. I think we can safely say that was a false confession that gave false intelligence.

This is entirely in line with the experience of history.

I'm sure that such false statements happen quite frequently in standard interrogations too. Interestingly, since the detainee doesn't know what the interrogators know, the best course of action for a detainee is to keep his mouth shut and not say anything. Reportedly, KSM didn't answer questions before being subjected to torture. He just cited verses of the Koran. This is definitely the right strategy. Once you start talking, even if your intent is to deceive, you're giving your interrogators information. What your interrogators do with that information is another question, of course. The good ones will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The bad ones will see what they want to see.

 

[sunmaster14]

What if they know nothing?

How do you know they know what you want to know before you start interrogating them?

And why are we still talking about the efficacy of torture? You just don't do it. Ever. To anyone, for any reason. No.

We are still talking about the efficacy of torture because there are several posters here who won't even let the discussion move on to the more interesting moral question about when, if ever, torture would be acceptable because they claim (very conveniently, for their own consciences) that torture doesn't work. RandFan even claimed that there is no point discussing such complicated moral questions because torture doesn't work. Upchurch's modus operandi is to declare that there is always a better alternative to torture, and that any hypothetical which explicitly rules out non-torture methods is inherently implausible and not worth discussing. They both are so adamant in their positions, that it really does seem like their beliefs are held with a religious fervor which is immune to logic and reason.

If you accept as a premise that in certain situations torture will work and non-torture won't work, then we can have an interesting discussion about whether your otherwise admirable moral principle leads to moral contradictions.

 

[Upchurch]

Common sense is not the same as "unquestioned belief" at all. It is knowledge that most humans learn from life experience, almost without knowing they're learning it.

Also known as confirmation bias.

The idea that the prospect of reward or punishment can affect behavior is obvious.

Yes, but you have to understand what behavior you are rewarding or punishing. All that torture rewards the torturee is stopping the torture by providing information that sounds correct to the torturer, not information that is correct. The torturee has no incentive to only provide the correct information.

What people like you would have us believe is that if the prospect of punishment is too intense, the entire incentive structure breaks down.

You still aren't paying attention to what people are telling you.

Call me a skeptic.

Wouldn't dream of it.

 

[The Norseman]

One more comment that I want to make about this is that I think that Jack Bauer was morally and rationally (though not legally) justified in his use of torture in the TV show 24. In one case, for example, terrorists would have exploded a nuclear bomb in LA if he did not torture someone.

Of course, real life bears no reflection to that fictional TV show.

If anyone hasn't yet seen the film Unthinkable with Sam Jackson, y'all probably need to. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/

In order not to spoil a very good thriller, I won't say more than this (even under torture).

 

[The Norseman]

Yes, but if they know the truth, why wouldn't they tell that first?

It has been shown that many people hold their ideologies more closely than their own comfort or lives. The problem is, no one knows who and when.

After all, if your interrogators are able to disprove something you told them, it's likely to result in prolonged punishment. The truth is unlikely to be disproven. If it is verified, it is likely even to result in a reward (e.g. an end to abuse).

And is this what in fact happens? Is this what the available evidence shows?

What a good interrogator really wants to hear is the truth. A good interrogator wouldn't even tip his hand to the detainee as to what he wants to hear. Also, I keep hearing about this so-called evidence that torture doesn't work, and yet I've never seen anything but appeals to this emotional idea that people will say anything to avoid torture.

Well, there are minor, pesky things called morals and ethics which prevent things like randomized blind trials regarding torture, so all that's available are case studies. They fail to disprove the null, especially when compared to other non-torturous methods of information gathering.

If you can't see how obviously weak that argument is, then I submit to you that the idea that torture doesn't work has become an article of faith for you, and not one of logical analysis.

While it has an emotional element usually of disgust and horror, it's not the only argument being put forth and I'd rather think you could focus on those instead.

I'm sure that such false statements happen quite frequently in standard interrogations too. Interestingly, since the detainee doesn't know what the interrogators know, the best course of action for a detainee is to keep his mouth shut and not say anything.

It's the very best course of action for anyone to keep their mouth shut and not say anything to the cops/government/interrogators, yet we see people talking all the time.

Reportedly, KSM didn't answer questions before being subjected to torture. He just cited verses of the Koran. This is definitely the right strategy. Once you start talking, even if your intent is to deceive, you're giving your interrogators information. What your interrogators do with that information is another question, of course. The good ones will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The bad ones will see what they want to see.

Which are which?

We are still talking about the efficacy of torture because there are several posters here who won't even let the discussion move on to the more interesting moral question about when, if ever, torture would be acceptable because they claim (very conveniently, for their own consciences) that torture doesn't work.

Start a new thread in R&P and I'm sure many of us will participate.

They both are so adamant in their positions, that it really does seem like their beliefs are held with a religious fervor which is immune to logic and reason.

No need to make this personal.

If you accept as a premise that in certain situations torture will work and non-torture won't work, then we can have an interesting discussion about whether your otherwise admirable moral principle leads to moral contradictions.

R&P awaits, good sir!

 

[RandFan]

Having defended torture, having constructed arguments in an attempt to persuade others that torture was both effective and moral under some circumstances I'm more than capable of entertaining the idea again.

I'm quite capable of entertaining the use of cruel and unusual punishment. The suspension of habeas corpus and due process. The elimination of free speech, freedom of the press and setting fire to cats for fun.

Hell, I'm willing to entertain the proposition that the world is flat.

At the end of the day the questions are academic. We have plenty of history and much brain power by philosophers and scholars far better than us to resolve any mystery that might have existed for all of these questions. There should not be any prior restraint to any subject. If you want to consider the efficacy of slavery or genocide then that is fine. Just understand that those of us who oppose inhumanity on the grounds that it is inhumane do not necessarily abhor these activities as a matter of faith. We have indeed considered the implications of inhumane behavior and find that they are so debauching and so counter to human decency as to compel us to recoil at the notion.

The questions might be interesting but asking them isn't likely to expand our horizons. By all means, ask, discuss, talk. Believe what ever you like. Just understand that the evidence is clear. There is no empirical evidence that torture works and even if there was there is no evidence that it is ever necessary and even if there were many of us would still find it unacceptable.

 

[sunmaster14]

Having defended torture, having constructed arguments in an attempt to persuade others that torture was both effective and moral under some circumstances I'm more than capable of entertaining the idea again.

I asked you once before what made you change your mind, and you never responded. I'm still interested in some specific reasons. I don't think one's moral judgment changes so easily in adulthood.

And for the record, I don't think that the fact that you changed your mind once means that you're open to changing your mind back. To the contrary, I've found that converts to a cause are usually the most zealous. Though it is often difficult for humans to change their mind, it strikes me as far more difficult to change one's mind back again.

I'm quite capable of entertaining the use of cruel and unusual punishment. The suspension of habeas corpus and due process. The elimination of free speech, freedom of the press and setting fire to cats for fun.

Hell, I'm willing to entertain the proposition that the world is flat.

LOL. I'm trying to decide which kind of rhetorical device this is? Is it appeal to emotion, poisoning the well? Sure, I'm willing to consider your argument for X, just like I'm open to an argument that we should sacrifice children during a recession to appease the economy gods.

At the end of the day the questions are academic. We have plenty of history and much brain power by philosophers and scholars far better than us to resolve any mystery that might have existed for all of these questions.

An appeal to an authority that you can't even name?

There should not be any prior restraint to any subject. If you want to consider the efficacy of slavery or genocide then that is fine.

Good stuff! You clearly have had a lot of practice with this rhetorical technique.

Just understand that those of us who oppose inhumanity on the grounds that it is inhumane do not necessarily abhor these activities as a matter of faith. We have indeed considered the implications of inhumane behavior and find that they are so debauching and so counter to human decency as to compel us to recoil at the notion.

This is a different argument than the "torture doesn't work" one. If you want to go with this new one, fine, but I'm still wondering what made you change your mind about the morality of torture.

The questions might be interesting but asking them isn't likely to expand our horizons. By all means, ask, discuss, talk. Believe what ever you like. Just understand that the evidence is clear. There is no empirical evidence that torture works and even if there was there is no evidence that it is ever necessary and even if there were many of us would still find it unacceptable.

Believe whatever I like, but understand the evidence is clear? Sounds like a contradiction to me. And evidence of what? Evidence that there is no evidence? What might that evidence be?

Also, I wonder how you feel when you watch a movie where the hero tortures the bad guy to save lives? Do you feel a sense of moral outrage, or do you cheer along with the rest of the audience?

For my part, I think it depends on the level of defiance of the bad guy. While he's still being defiant, I side with the hero. After the bad guy breaks, I feel sympathy for him and wish the torture to end. Of course, in the movies they rarely show the space in between, where the bad guy breaks, but still doesn't give the information that the hero is after. I think that would upset most people.

 

[Olowkow]

Harvey's Casino was the scene of one of the strangest stories of "ticking time bombs" in the history of the FBI.

A disgruntled gambler who had lost heavily to the casino, 59-year-old John Birges, designed the ultimate tamper proof bomb, and along with accomplices, placed it in the casino. Birges was highly motivated to destroy the Hotel and Casino or extort 3 million dollars for the secret of disarming the 1000 lb explosive device.

The favorite scenario of the torture advocate is only remotely desirable in this dilemma, since even if the bomb's designer were tortured by interrogators, who were 100% certain of his guilt, there could be no intelligence, no disarming technique, that could be safely carried out with absolute certainty to save the building. Even while acceding to the extortionist's demands of providing him with the ransom and escape, he might actually provide false information that would cause the immediate detonation and in turn kill the bomb squad technician.

Certainly a plot by any highly motivated nuclear bomber worth his salt would consider the possible capture and torture of the culprit and make the bomb impervious to defusing even by himself.

In the end, Birges never got the money, was caught and convicted by testimony of his accomplices, his two sons. The sons were not tortured, just offered suspended sentences and they talked.

In the early morning hours of August 26, 1980—29 years ago today—men wearing white jumpsuits and pretending to deliver an IBM copy machine rolled a bomb into Harvey’s Resort Hotel and Casino in Stateline, Nevada, near Lake Tahoe.

So began one of the most unusual cases in our history.

A note left with the bomb—titled STERN WARNING TO THE MANAGEMENT AND BOMB SQUAD—began ominously: “Do not move or tilt this bomb, because the mechanism controlling the detonators in it will set it off at a movement of less than .01 of the open end Ricter scale.”

 

[sunmaster14]

Harvey's Casino was the scene of one of the strangest stories of "ticking time bombs" in the history of the FBI.

A disgruntled gambler who had lost heavily to the casino, 59-year-old John Birges, designed the ultimate tamper proof bomb, and along with accomplices, placed it in the casino. Birges was highly motivated to destroy the Hotel and Casino or extort 3 million dollars for the secret of disarming the 1000 lb explosive device.

The favorite scenario of the torture advocate is only remotely desirable in this dilemma, since even if the bomb's designer were tortured by interrogators, who were 100% certain of his guilt, there could be no intelligence, no disarming technique, that could be safely carried out with absolute certainty to save the building. Even while acceding to the extortionist's demands of providing him with the ransom and escape, he might actually provide false information that would cause the immediate detonation and in turn kill the bomb squad technician.

Certainly a plot by any highly motivated nuclear bomber worth his salt would consider the possible capture and torture of the culprit and make the bomb impervious to defusing even by himself.

In the end, Birges never got the money, was caught and convicted by testimony of his accomplices, his two sons. The sons were not tortured, just offered suspended sentences and they talked.

I see. His sons (who may very well have been wholly innocent before the fact) were just threatened with torture (e.g. going to prison and having 300lb Bubba as a cellmate), and they talked. It's nice that the FBI didn't actually have to resort to torture.

 

[Upchurch]

I see. His sons (who may very well have been wholly innocent before the fact) were just threatened with torture (e.g. going to prison and having 300lb Bubba as a cellmate), and they talked. It's nice that the FBI didn't actually have to resort to torture.

I suppose asking you to support these claims would continue to be an exercise in futility.