Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Crossbow]

See here.

You think that that article supports the point in post, but the article actually contradicts your post.

 

[sunmaster14]

Were the ones who confessed to witchcraft actually witches?

Using torture to verify something that you tell the subject that you already know is obviously absurd. Using it to get a confession is doubly so.

Torture works in degrading the society that condones it's use.

Well, that would definitely weigh in on the negative side of the ledger when contemplating condoning torture in any particular case. Not sure how big that effect is. As I've tried to point out in various ways, torture is pretty commonplace.

 

[fishbob]

KSM was waterboarded 5 times. G6000 is referring to the number of times water was poured on his face.

183 / 5 = 35 to 40 times per session. That is a lot of simulated drowning.
The sadistic bastards that ordered this and carried this out need to be put away for a long time. They have needed to be put away for a long time for a long time, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[sunmaster14]

You think that that article supports the point in post, but the article actually contradicts your post.

How so?

 

[sunmaster14]

Did you not understand Darat's post or did you just choose to ignore the second half?

I guess I didn't understand it. I thought the article I linked addressed his point.

 

[Crossbow]

How so?

Actually read the article for yourself and you will find out how so.

 

[Darat]

It's de facto, not de jure. See here. I thought this stuff was common knowledge. Perhaps only in the US.

Thanks for the link, given it contradicts what you stated I take it this means you've retracted your opinion that rape in prison is used as part of judicial approved torture?

 

[sunmaster14]

Thanks for the link, given it contradicts what you stated I take it this means you've retracted your opinion that rape in prison is used as part of judicial approved torture?

I think you've misunderstood my point, which is that everybody in the justice system knows that certain kinds of prisoners are extremely vulnerable to rape in prison and that this knowledge is used to extort cooperation from those suspects above and beyond the traditional threat of incarceration. For certain kinds of people (e.g. the physically weak or those who have been charged with sex crimes themselves), a jail sentence is the equivalent of jail plus torture. Many people, both inside and outside of the justice system, are quite cavalier about prison rape. The contrast with how other kinds of rape or torture are treated in our society is really quite remarkable.

 

[Garrette]

I think you've misunderstood my point, which is that everybody in the justice system knows that certain kinds of prisoners are extremely vulnerable to rape in prison and that this knowledge is used to extort cooperation from those suspects above and beyond the traditional threat of incarceration. For certain kinds of people (e.g. the physically weak or those who have been charged with sex crimes themselves), a jail sentence is the equivalent of jail plus torture. Many people, both inside and outside of the justice system, are quite cavalier about prison rape. The contrast with how other kinds of rape or torture are treated in our society is really quite remarkable.

I was about to jump in to say this on your behalf. It's a valid point, yet it is only valid as a separate point, not this one.

It's a form of Tu Quoque, at best: "You do X which is also torture therefore Y either isn't torture or is okay if it is."

 

[sunmaster14]

I was about to jump in to say this on your behalf. It's a valid point, yet it is only valid as a separate point, not this one.

It's a form of Tu Quoque, at best: "You do X which is also torture therefore Y either isn't torture or is okay if it is."

No, my point has never been about tu quoque. It's about selective outrage. I believe the CIA tortured people, and I believe they shouldn't have done it. I have been consistent about that. Two people who have not been consistent about that are Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not okay with prison rape and I don't think anyone should be cavalier about it.

I'm not at all happy with our prison system. I'm not at all happy with our focus on retributive justice. Retributive justice will likely be a component of our legal system for some time to come but we should begin to focus more and more on restorative justice.

Incarcerations should first and foremost exist to segregate dangerous individuals from society.

 

[Crossbow]

No, my point has never been about tu quoque. It's about selective outrage. I believe the CIA tortured people, and I believe they shouldn't have done it. I have been consistent about that. Two people who have not been consistent about that are Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein.

Wow!

Is your logic shifting gears again?

 

[G6000]

See here.

The American POW had water poured on his cloth-covered face a total of "4 or 5 times". KSM, 183 times.

The American POW's waterboarding session was enough to be considered a war crime by the United States. So what does 183 times times in 5 sessions rank if we use the US's own yardstick?

 

[KDLarsen]

Looks like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is onboard the "ticking timebomb"-scenario train as an excuse to torture people.

 

[jimbob]

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.

I'm confused - we have given plenty of examples showing how unreliable "information" gained by torture is. You have merely repeated "commonsense" or assertions by people with a vested interest that it works with no examples.

ETA: What evidence do you want, other than examples where thousands of people lied under torture because they thought that was what the torturer wanted? You, however have presented no evidence save the assertion by members of the CIA that it worked. The people assessing its effectiveness for the CIA were the people who had a massive contract ($180M IIRC) based on the supposed effectiveness of their interrogation techniques. They had a massive vested interest in saying it worked

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.

Remember that about 20% of those detained by the CIA were innocent. How, other than lying could any of those get the torture to stop?
We also know that human memory is pretty bad under normal stress. If you are subjecting someone to torture, then they are under severe stress and even if they are being cooperative they are likely to be confused. I have no doubt that they will talk. I have doubt that anyone (including the victim) will have any idea what is true and what is not.

 

[jimbob]

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.

We could also have a discussion about whether Superman could beat Darth Vader in a fight. Arguing about whether torture is morally justified misses the point if it doesn't work.

I would argue that the UK was in a more risky situation in 1941 when Rudolf Hess flew into British custody than the US was after 9/11. Hess was also a senior Nazi, and would reasonably be expected to have useful information. If Britain didn't see the need to torture him, then that sets any bar pretty high.

 

[RandFan]

No one is being told they cannot discuss torture. No one is saying we should not discuss torture. Some of us are saying that the subject is academic. If you want to advance the discussion then tell us how such a discussion adds to our understanding of interrogation?

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]

I'm confused - we have given plenty of examples showing how unreliable "information" gained by torture is. You have merely repeated "commonsense" or assertions by people with a vested interest that it works with no examples.

Examples of people giving unreliable information under torture are mostly useless. People give unreliable information even when they're trying to be helpful, let alone when they're being interrogated by standard methods. Look at all of the nonsense testimony that came out of the Michael Brown shooting.

The point is to get people to download whatever relevant data they have in their brains. There is legitimate information in there. Sifting through and finding it requires careful analysis and crosschecking, but the first step is getting the data. What do you do if the prisoner refuses to talk at all? I suppose you could try consulting a mind reader.

ETA: What evidence do you want, other than examples where thousands of people lied under torture because they thought that was what the torturer wanted? You, however have presented no evidence save the assertion by members of the CIA that it worked. The people assessing its effectiveness for the CIA were the people who had a massive contract ($180M IIRC) based on the supposed effectiveness of their interrogation techniques. They had a massive vested interest in saying it worked

The Israelis also think it works. The Landau Commission report in 1987 clearly accepted the premise that physical pressure works to elicit information from otherwise uncooperative prisoners.

Remember also that those who say torture doesn't work are making a very expansive claim. Torture only has to work on some people, some of the time, in order for it to be said to be efficacious. For example, suppose that only 10% of uncooperative prisoners can be made to divulge relevant truth by the use of torture. If you're racing to save thousands of innocent lives, utility theory might say it's still worth a try, even if it will fail 90% of the time.

Remember that about 20% of those detained by the CIA were innocent. How, other than lying could any of those get the torture to stop?

Well, mistakes are terrible, but it does seem like the harshest methods were only reserved for those whose guilt was known with the highest degree of certainty. So perhaps the CIA really did have a decent idea about probability of guilt beforehand.

We also know that human memory is pretty bad under normal stress. If you are subjecting someone to torture, then they are under severe stress and even if they are being cooperative they are likely to be confused. I have no doubt that they will talk. I have doubt that anyone (including the victim) will have any idea what is true and what is not.

I agree about human memory being fragile and unreliable, and I have no doubt that torture is a terrible method for retrieving tenuous, repressed, or very old memories. But for questions like "where did you plant that bomb that you've been working on for the last 3 months?" or "what is the name of that guy you've been working with for the last 5 years?" I think those memories are pretty fresh and robust.

 

[sunmaster14]

We could also have a discussion about whether Superman could beat Darth Vader in a fight. Arguing about whether torture is morally justified misses the point if it doesn't work.

Right. Which is why we're stuck discussing efficacy.

I would argue that the UK was in a more risky situation in 1941 when Rudolf Hess flew into British custody than the US was after 9/11. Hess was also a senior Nazi, and would reasonably be expected to have useful information. If Britain didn't see the need to torture him, then that sets any bar pretty high.

Well, apparently Britain did see the need to torture during WWII, and did.

 

[RandFan]

One more thing, there is no moral philosophy that resolves all moral dilemma. At the risk of repeating the same point again, Harvard Justice Professor Michael Sandel notes that the study of morality is not to be reassured but instead disturbed. Morality, ethics, justice, these are not exact science with logical proofs. They are the result of a hodge podge of brain modules that perform various calculations that are the result of evolution and natural selection to propagate genes. Thousands of years of philosophical inquiry in a market place of ideas and teasing out the concepts and rules that make our various codes of conduct cannot resolve the conflict that naturally arises due to competing subjective goals, needs and wants.

If you think there is something interesting about torture then make a case.