Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[fishbob]

. . . . 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. . . . .

You make this sound like an academic exercise, when real people have to get their real hands really dirty in order to carry out 'enhanced interrogations'.

You fail to address several very important aspects of this process:
Where do you find these interrogators? Advertise for sadistic perverts on Craigslist?
Do you seriously expect careful analysis and cross-checking from your crew of sadistic perverts?
What we are supposed to do with the interrogators on their days off? Are they coming over to your house for burgers and beer?

I better not see one of them on a plane.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . 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.

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. . . .

Those who say torture is efficacious are making a very expensive claim. And still using the completely unrealistic ticking time-bomb scenario as justification. All this filtering and cross-checking you claim is required is not possible when you are "racing to save thousands".

Mistakes are terrible, due process is out the window in your scenario, and the deviated preverts you hired to carry out these "harshest methods" will not care about probability of guilt.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Experts in the field say that it is counter productive. That it wastes time and can even irreparably damage the brain rendering the data useless. If beating a hard drive with a hammer works to get the hard drive to spin sometimes but usually is just wasted effort and results in a damaged drive then why not find a better way to recover the data?

 

[Upchurch]

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.

{snip}

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.

The problem is two-fold. First, there is always a better alternative to torture because torture is grossly inefficient. However, second, your contrived attempts to make torture justified creates a situation that is no longer about the morality of torture.

Instead, you've created a Kobayashi Maru where there is no winning solution. And, as I trust everyone knows, the only correct solution to a Kobayashi Maru is to cheat, which is why I never pick either of your two options but always try to come up with another. The only way to win is to not play within the parameters your enemy, in this case your hypothetical voyeuristic sadist, defines.

Please don't confuse my rejection of your parameters as stubbornness or an unwillingness to consider a situation. Rather, consider it for what it is: recognizing that there are always other options.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Torture advocates seem to be bizarrely concerned with justifying occasional "deals with the Devil" in pursuit of some "greater good" with no hint of irony at all...

 

[Wudang]

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

Your first link is argument from incredulity
Your second link is from what has earned the nickname of "The Daily Fail".

 

[RandFan]

The main reason to not torture is so that other nations will understand that there is a moral line in the sand and that America will hold the moral high ground. When you say that well, it's okay if we water board then you say to other nations, it's okay for you to water board our soldiers.

Morality is not a one way street you cannot be outraged that other nations water board our soldiers if you cavalierly water board others.

 

[RandFan]

Torture advocates seem to be bizarrely concerned with justifying occasional "deals with the Devil" in pursuit of some "greater good" with no hint of irony at all...

But we are the righteous ones.

"You'd break the law to punish the Devil, wouldn't you?" And the prosecutor, the witch hunter, says "Break it?" He says "I'd cut down every law in England if I could do that, if I could capture him." And Moore says "Yes you would wouldn't you? And then when you corner the Devil and the Devil turned round to meet you, where would you run for protection? All the laws of England having been cut down and flattened, who would protect you then?" --Hitchens

 

[logger]

First, there is always a better alternative to torture

Those would be?

We better let Obama know before he drones anymore.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

My standard of morality is that every individual should be willing to have done to them the very worst thing they are willing to do to someone else. Therefore those who are willing to carry out torture on others should be willing to be subjected to the same torture methods themselves. In my case, the worst I'd be willing to do to someone else is to kill in self-defense or defense of a loved one. Since I'd never attack someone else unprovoked, I'm fine with applying my standard to myself.

 

[theprestige]

My standard of morality is that every individual should be willing to have done to them the very worst thing they are willing to do to someone else. Therefore those who are willing to carry out torture on others should be willing to be subjected to the same torture methods themselves. In my case, the worst I'd be willing to do to someone else is to kill in self-defense or defense of a loved one. Since I'd never attack someone else unprovoked, I'm fine with applying my standard to myself.

By your standard of morality, it's immoral for hostage rescue teams to kill in defense of hostages, unless they are close friends or family of the hostages. Or does that kind of attack fall under your Moral Provocation clause?

ETA: It also seems to open wide the door to torture. If I accept that I will likely be tortured, and understandably so, if I fall into enemy hands, then is it not moral for me to employ torture myself whenever I believe it is necessary? All the president needs is a few good men who see the value and accept the risk, and the entire program becomes eminently moral by your standard.

 

[fishbob]

By your standard of morality, it's immoral for hostage rescue teams to kill in defense of hostages, unless they are close friends or family of the hostages. Or does that kind of attack fall under your Moral Provocation clause?

ETA: It also seems to open wide the door to torture. If I accept that I will likely be tortured, and understandably so, if I fall into enemy hands, then is it not moral for me to employ torture myself whenever I believe it is necessary? All the president needs is a few good men who see the value and accept the risk, and the entire program becomes eminently moral by your standard.

You keep mixing up war with torture - in this case you are claiming that hostage rescue is somehow equivalent to prisoner abuse. It is not equivalent. There are no similarities.

 

[Wudang]

Comparison: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/torture-what-the-vietcong-learned-and-the-cia-didnt/

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Daily Show had a segment on Cheney's defense. I used to feel bad about the way liberals vilified him, but now I am convinced he literally is morally evil. Literally.

 

[sunmaster14]

You make this sound like an academic exercise, when real people have to get their real hands really dirty in order to carry out 'enhanced interrogations'.

You fail to address several very important aspects of this process:
Where do you find these interrogators? Advertise for sadistic perverts on Craigslist?
Do you seriously expect careful analysis and cross-checking from your crew of sadistic perverts?
What we are supposed to do with the interrogators on their days off? Are they coming over to your house for burgers and beer?

I better not see one of them on a plane.

I think you definitely would not want sadistic perverts to be interrogators. You seem to believe, without evidence, that only sadistic perverts could possibly be willing to inflict torture. I don't think you're right about that. It's an extremely difficult and unsettling job, but many good people might be convinced that it's a necessary job. You don't need to be a sociopath to believe in the ends justifying the means in some circumstances. I suspect soldiers are frequently faced with terrible moral dilemmas in battle, but they don't have to be sociopaths to be effective.

 

[sunmaster14]

Your first link is argument from incredulity
Your second link is from what has earned the nickname of "The Daily Fail".

The author of the Daily Mail article is the author of a book on the topic. It has been reviewed by other people. As far as I can find out, his conclusions have not been challenged.

 

[sunmaster14]

The main reason to not torture is so that other nations will understand that there is a moral line in the sand and that America will hold the moral high ground. When you say that well, it's okay if we water board then you say to other nations, it's okay for you to water board our soldiers.

This is often given as a justification for a no-torture policy. As a practical matter, I don't think it works. Against a nation-state, where there can be treaties and agreements and 3rd party monitors, it makes sense. Against a distributed, stateless terrorist group, I think any moral standards we adhere to have no effect on our enemy.

Morality is not a one way street you cannot be outraged that other nations water board our soldiers if you cavalierly water board others.

Well, first of all, we can be outraged. We're hypocritically outraged all the time. We unleash drone missiles at random times in other countries, spreading fear and causing civilian casualties, and justify it as going after terrorists. And yet if another country were to plant a bomb in the US to kill a terrorist harboring here, we would go absolutely ******* crazy.

Second, we can distinguish the people we waterboarded from our own soldiers. Our own soldiers not only didn't plan and perpetrate a vicious attack against a civilian target, but they're also unlikely to have any meaningful information to give the enemy.

 

[sunmaster14]

My standard of morality is that every individual should be willing to have done to them the very worst thing they are willing to do to someone else. Therefore those who are willing to carry out torture on others should be willing to be subjected to the same torture methods themselves. In my case, the worst I'd be willing to do to someone else is to kill in self-defense or defense of a loved one. Since I'd never attack someone else unprovoked, I'm fine with applying my standard to myself.

Your logic is incomplete. Those who carried out torture for the CIA believed they were carrying out torture on people who perpetrated a terrorist attack which killed 3,000 people. So, by your logic, they should only be willing to be subjected to the same torture methods themselves if they had perpetrated a similar terrorist attack (or at least were suspected of same). I imagine they could accept that, just as you could accept the self-defense standard being applied to yourself.

 

[Wudang]

The author of the Daily Mail article is the author of a book on the topic. It has been reviewed by other people. As far as I can find out, his conclusions have not been challenged.

Did you read the Telegraph review? He points out a number of problems with some of the cases.

 

[sunmaster14]

Did you read the Telegraph review? He points out a number of problems with some of the cases.

Only the recent cases having to with the War on Terror. Do you think this undermines his work having to do with actions during WWII?