Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Wudang]

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?

Actually reading other reviews the consensus seems to be that his book is generally held to be true

 

[pgwenthold]

I have lost track of the thread (not reading sunmaster's comments will cause that) but I want to make sure I have it clear. Is it now the contention that, yes, the things we did are torture but it is ok to do that for whatever reason?

I thought the argument was originally that the "enhanced interrogation methods" were not technically torture?

Or is it a case of, "It's not actually torture, but even if it were, it's acceptable."

 

[Upchurch]

We better let Obama know before he drones anymore.

What do drone attacks have to do with torture of prisoners?

 

[Crossbow]

What do drone attacks have to do with torture of prisoners?

If I may interject ...

I have heard some people essentially say 'that it is more humane to torture someone than it is to kill them'.

While that rationale does not make much sense to me, it sure does make some people happy.

 

[Upchurch]

I have lost track of the thread (not reading sunmaster's comments will cause that) but I want to make sure I have it clear. Is it now the contention that, yes, the things we did are torture but it is ok to do that for whatever reason?

I thought the argument was originally that the "enhanced interrogation methods" were not technically torture?

Or is it a case of, "It's not actually torture, but even if it were, it's acceptable."

He's actually tried both tacts, but his current argument is that there is a spectrum of pain and suffering and since you can't draw a definitive line where one side is "torture" and the other is "not torture", then there really is no such thing as "torture".

You know, despite the fact that several people have defined acts that reasonably are "torture", thus really negating his argument.

 

[sunmaster14]

He's actually tried both tacts, but his current argument is that there is a spectrum of pain and suffering and since you can't draw a definitive line where one side is "torture" and the other is "not torture", then there really is no such thing as "torture".

You know, despite the fact that several people have defined acts that reasonably are "torture", thus really negating his argument.

First of all, the word is "tacks" not "tacts." Second, I have never ever claimed that waterboarding is not torture. Third, you continue either to misconstrue or dishonestly represent my argument concerning the morality of torture. I have never claimed that there is no such thing as torture. I have only argued that the perceived morality of the use of physical force depends on circumstances, and there is nothing magical about torture versus other forms of physical and mental coercion in that regard. Another way of saying this is that just because some action crosses the legal line separating torture from non-torture, the moral outrage meter shouldn't discontinuously jump to 11. Using a level of physical force short of torture on a suspect can be just as immoral or more so as waterboarding a terrorist, depending upon circumstances. I have also argued that such circumstances may even justify the waterboarding of a terrorist so the act isn't immoral at all.

 

[pgwenthold]

He's actually tried both tacts, but his current argument is that there is a spectrum of pain and suffering and since you can't draw a definitive line where one side is "torture" and the other is "not torture", then there really is no such thing as "torture".

But what does that have to do with a ticking time bomb scenario, which apparently justifies the use of torture even when there is not ticking bomb?

Or is that coming from different sources?

 

[sunmaster14]

I have lost track of the thread (not reading sunmaster's comments will cause that) but I want to make sure I have it clear. Is it now the contention that, yes, the things we did are torture but it is ok to do that for whatever reason?

I thought the argument was originally that the "enhanced interrogation methods" were not technically torture?

Or is it a case of, "It's not actually torture, but even if it were, it's acceptable."

Do my posts upset you too much, or is it that they're just too difficult to understand?

 

[RandFan]

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.

One's leverage is stronger if one holds the moral high ground. That our morality won't end all other immorality is not justification for us to then be immoral.

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.

You were talking earlier about moral contradictions. I'm not sure you understand what moral inconsistency is. FWIW: I have spoken out against drone strikes and I have condemned Obama for them. I have stated that IMO Obama bears responsibility for crimes against humanity. I do not euphemistically refer to dead civilians as collateral damage. They are the human victims of homicide. I am not selective in my condemnation of inhumanity. I have plainly stated that America has and is committing crimes against humanity.

Our soldiers do in fact hold actionable intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, not every detainee in Gitmo planned and perpetrated vicious attacks against American civilians. Soldiers in Iraq and Afganastan have planned and carried out war crimes against civilians.

Your ability to rationalize American atrocity against innocent people while attempting to appeal to a sense of justice against the atrocity of others does not speak well of your personal ethics. When I say we "cannot be outraged" I mean one cannot be morally consistent while condemning the atrocity of others while at the same time and in a self serving manner attempt to justify torture.

Having made many thousands of posts discussing and debating morality I see nothing here of you engaging in philosophical moral inquiry. I see rationalization and justification.

Finally, your use of the third person to remove yourself from moral questions is just a red herring. Americans are not monolithic in their views of justice. Conventional wisdom or prevailing mores are not arguments for what is and is not moral. It's simply a form of tu quoque. It tells us nothing of the truth of any proposition. Tell us what you think is moral and why using logically valid argument composed of definite proposition that leads via inference to a sound conclusion.

The hypocrisy of American citizens won't establish the truth of anything other than the hypocrisy of American citizens.

 

[sunmaster14]

One's leverage is stronger if one holds the moral high ground. That our morality won't end all other immorality is not justification for us to then be immoral.

You were talking earlier about moral contradictions. I'm not sure you understand what moral inconsistency is. FWIW: I have spoken out against drone strikes and I have condemned Obama for them. I have stated that IMO Obama bears responsibility for crimes against humanity. I do not euphemistically refer to dead civilians as collateral damage. They are the human victims of homicide. I am not selective in my condemnation of inhumanity. I have plainly stated that America has and is committing crimes against humanity.

Our soldiers do in fact hold actionable intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, not every detainee in Gitmo planned and perpetrated vicious attacks against American civilians. Soldiers in Iraq and Afganastan have planned and carried out war crimes against civilians.

Your ability to rationalize American atrocity against innocent people while attempting to appeal to a sense of justice against the atrocity of others does not speak well of your personal ethics. When I say we "cannot be outraged" I mean one cannot be morally consistent while condemning the atrocity of others while at the same time and in a self serving manner attempt to justify torture.

Having made many thousands of posts discussing and debating morality I see nothing here of you engaging in philosophical moral inquiry. I see rationalization and justification.

Finally, your use of the third person to remove yourself from moral questions is just a red herring. Americans are not monolithic in their views of justice. Conventional wisdom or prevailing mores are not arguments for what is and is not moral. It's simply a form of tu quoque. It tells us nothing of the truth of any proposition. Tell us what you think is moral and why using logically valid argument composed of definite proposition that leads via inference to a sound conclusion.

The hypocrisy of American citizens won't establish the truth of anything other than the hypocrisy of American citizens.

I think the drone killings are immoral, and I think we should stop them. I recognize the moral hypocrisy in the actions of all nation-states, in particular ours. On the other hand, I don't consider hypocrisy to be a terrible moral crime, and I acknowledge that I also am a hypocrite in many areas. When it comes to defending myself, my family, my friends, and my way of life, I am a hypocrite. I extend that same hypocrisy to my country, since my country has pledged to defend me, my family, my friends, and my way of life.

We live in a morally ambiguous world. Sometimes your friends act worse than your enemies. But your friends are your friends, and that sometimes outweighs the rest.

ETA: Just for the grammatical record, I used the word "we" in the previous post. "We" is not the 3rd person. I never tried to distance myself from the hypocrisy I identified.

 

[Upchurch]

I have also argued that such circumstances may even justify the waterboarding of a terrorist so the act isn't immoral at all.

But you still have yet to support that argument.

But what does that have to do with a ticking time bomb scenario, which apparently justifies the use of torture even when there is not ticking bomb?

Or is that coming from different sources?

They're both from sunmaster14 and they have nothing to do with one another. He seems to have abandoned that argument when he couldn't support it without relying on a bunch of logical fallacies.

 

[RandFan]

I think the drone killings are immoral, and I think we should stop them. I recognize the moral hypocrisy in the actions of all nation-states, in particular ours. On the other hand, I don't consider hypocrisy to be a terrible moral crime, and I acknowledge that I also am a hypocrite in many areas. When it comes to defending myself, my family, my friends, and my way of life, I am a hypocrite. I extend that same hypocrisy to my country, since my country has pledged to defend me, my family, my friends, and my way of life.

We live in a morally ambiguous world. Sometimes your friends act worse than your enemies. But your friends are your friends, and that sometimes outweighs the rest.

ETA: Just for the grammatical record, I used the word "we" in the previous post. "We" is not the 3rd person. I never tried to distance myself from the hypocrisy I identified.

That we cannot resolve all moral dilemma is not a reason to fail to seek consistency in one's ethics. I'm not stating that you are making that argument. I'm stating that the purpose of moral inquiry is an attempt to be rational. If there is inconsistency then we need to look at that inconsistency and attempt to resolve it with reason and logic. Otherwise our ability to persuade others to our sense of justice lacks integrity.

Let's use your point about friends and family. It is true that our desire to see to the increased well-being and decreased suffering of others is strongest when it comes to friends and family. We can even calculate and make predictions as to the degree for which a person feels empathy for one's child as opposed to a sibling, co-workers, fellow citizens, foreigner.

Here's the thing, I don't want my child bullied by strangers. Therefore it is in my best interest to live in a society where citizens are expected to respect the rights of all citizens. In such a society my child is less likely to be bullied. Rational codes of conduct result in higher standards of living and well-being while reducing overall suffering.

 

[Crossbow]

I think the drone killings are immoral, and I think we should stop them. I recognize the moral hypocrisy in the actions of all nation-states, in particular ours. On the other hand, I don't consider hypocrisy to be a terrible moral crime, and I acknowledge that I also am a hypocrite in many areas. When it comes to defending myself, my family, my friends, and my way of life, I am a hypocrite. I extend that same hypocrisy to my country, since my country has pledged to defend me, my family, my friends, and my way of life.

We live in a morally ambiguous world. Sometimes your friends act worse than your enemies. But your friends are your friends, and that sometimes outweighs the rest.

ETA: Just for the grammatical record, I used the word "we" in the previous post. "We" is not the 3rd person. I never tried to distance myself from the hypocrisy I identified.

I really do not know how one can claim that "drone killings are immoral" while also claiming that "We live in a morally ambiguous world" and that the person making these claims confesses to being "a hypocrite in many areas".

 

[pgwenthold]

Do my posts upset you too much, or is it that they're just too difficult to understand?

Life's too short to waste on idiocy.

 

[Tony Stark]

What's immoral about drone killings. We're in a war with al Qaeda. When has it ever been immoral to kill enemies in a war?

 

[fishbob]

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.

You are proposing that we deliberately and permanently mess up our guys in order to ineffectively and inhumanely interrogate the other guys.

The only benefit I can see is that we could use the on-set of PTSD to separate the 'good people' from the sadistic perverts.

 

[RandFan]

What's immoral about drone killings. We're in a war with al Qaeda. When has it ever been immoral to kill enemies in a war?

I'm not going to argue that the claim is not controversial. The problem is killing innocent civilians in nations that we are not in war with like Pakistanis. Also, "war" is a fairly easy concept to equivocate in order to justify extrajudicial executions. It makes redundant the need for due process or any evidence that the suspect actually contributed a crime.

I understand the difficulties of combating a force that has no borders. I do not deny that there is an organized group bound by an ideology whose goal it is to kill Americans and that Americans rightly have an expectation that their govt will seek to protect them from this enemy. I do not for a moment think that Obama's actions are simply an attempt to execute political enemies or people who we do not have a reasonable suspicion of being terrorists.

I will also note that the analogy is a red herring when compared to terrorism. It perhaps would have been best for me not to have taken the bait. It's not salient to the discussion at hand and I won't continue with it.

 

[jimbob]

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



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

Neither of which were concerned about getting intelligence. The second was about getting confessions - which nobody has denied torture is effective at doing... the trouble is that it is too effective at that.

 

[I Am The Scum]

What's immoral about drone killings. We're in a war with al Qaeda. When has it ever been immoral to kill enemies in a war?

I don't want to derail the topic of the torture report, but I feel the need to point out that drone strikes are not a different type of sniper rifle. Quite often, strikes are performed on targets unidentified; targets chosen because they are travelling in locations "consistent with terrorists." Or we perform strikes on civilian areas. Or we perform strikes on first responders and funerals (a tactic we learned from the very terrorists we are trying to kill).

There's a lot more going on than killing enemies in a war.

 

[quadraginta]

What's immoral about drone killings. We're in a war with al Qaeda. When has it ever been immoral to kill enemies in a war?

How much "collateral damage" is needed for drone strikes to be immoral.

Is any amount acceptable as long as at least one bad guy gets killed? Does it take two?

What's an acceptable ratio between bad guys killed vs. innocent civilians?

If the bad guy turns out to not have been there is it immoral yet?

When we kill civilians of countries with which we are not engaged in active declared hostilities why is it not immoral?

There are bad guys in the U.S. (or fill in your own country) too. Do you extend the same arbitrary right for others to do the same on U.S. soil?