Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[anglolawyer]

But people who knew them aren't - well not yet....

When did it become a crime/act of war to know someone who goes on a suicide mission?

 

[Bluegill]

Since the ticking time bomb scenario has been referenced, for those who would support torture I pose the following question: You have a suspect in custody. It seems there is imminent danger of a large bomb going off outside a government building. Presumably torture is the tool to use to try and stop the situation. But here's the twist: it's an Oklahoma City-style scenario where your detainee is a Timothy McVeigh-style right-wing, anti-government terrorist. Is torture still acceptable? What if the prisoner is an American citizen? If torture is claimed to be an important tool in fighting terrorism, then shouldn't its use be widened to include American citizens suspected of terrorism as well as non-citizens?

It just occurred to me that since torture is okey-dokey for use in extreme situations, maybe we could use it periodically on tip-top Wall Streeters to find out early-on what is going wrong, what crimes are being committed and dodgy schemed perpetrated, in order to avert other financial crises? Too big to fail, sure! But maybe not too big for waterboarding.

 

[sunmaster14]

I think these people get it, approximately:



http://www.businessweek.com/article...nt-really-about-information-its-about-revenge

I gave the research paper referred to in your link a quick read. First of all, the authors are not quite so bold in their claims as the journalist implies. They merely conclude that retribution may be a factor. Second, I think the study has two rather glaring flaws. The first is that it fails to account for the well-known (to psychologists, at least) inability of untrained human beings to understand probabilities. Some of their correlations can be explained by the inability of poll respondents to distinguish 5%, 60%, and 95% probabilities (for "knowledge") properly. If the goal is positive, people tend to view small probabilities as much larger than they really are, and large probabilities as much smaller than they really are.

The second problem is the usual one about causality. The authors note that willingness to use torture depends upon the perceived level of guilt of the subject, but that is not necessarily because of a desire for retribution. It could be an assessment of the subject's moral entitlement. For example, I suspect that respondents would be more willing to torture an innocent adult than an innocent child. This is obvious and yet has nothing to do with a desire for revenge.

I'll note one very weird thing about the study. Take a look at Figure 3, where it breaks out Democrats vs Republicans. The Republicans show a perfectly rational response to changing "knowledge." The Democrats show a completely irrational response, i.e. they're less likely to torture an innocent person the more likely he is to give information that will save lives. Seems like there might have been some flaws in the authors' methodology.

 

[anglolawyer]

It just occurred to me that since torture is okey-dokey for use in extreme situations, maybe we could use it periodically on tip-top Wall Streeters to find out early-on what is going wrong, what crimes are being committed and dodgy schemed perpetrated, in order to avert other financial crises? Too big to fail, sure! But maybe not too big for waterboarding.

This seems a sensible and prudent extension of Sunmaster's Law of Illegal Torture (I like the new, internally contradictory name). At any rate, I would like to hear the moral case against pulling bankers' teeth having forgotten the anaesthetic.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Well, I could extend that logic and say that the CIA works for a government that has killed far more than 3,000 people, and caused more than its share of terror in its history. What if we're not the good guys?

That's irrelevant. The way you framed the issue, everything depends upon the point of view of the actor. Certainly the people in the CIA thought we were the good guys.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's a shame that you have been so misunderstood, especially when you are trying to explain something so trite: that law and morality do not precisely coincide.

Glad you agree.

But, broadly speaking, at least in the criminal sphere, they should.

Well, it's one of the reasons we inject humans into the process. There's prosecutors and judges and juries. If we allow legal decisions to be made by computers, it might lead to morally repugnant results.

I am happy to help you draft a law that will reflect your personal preferences in this area.

No, not only is this completely unnecessary, but it is an impossible task. The English language is insufficient (and way too ambiguous) to capture all of the distinctions which must be made. It's better to rely on the moral judgments of prosecutors, judges and juries.

If you want to coin a Sunmaster's law, it is this: No person shall be prosecuted of a crime, let alone convicted, unless he has violated both the letter and the spirit of the law, as determined by other human beings with all relevant information in the matter. I'll note that recent polls show that a sizable majority of Americans think the CIA was justified in its actions. I don't think these opinions are based on ignorance, since support is positively correlated with how closely respondents are following the controversy in the news.

 

[Upchurch]

Jabjabjab at poor old Sunmaster.

...not all of which is undeserved.

Some of these arguments seem familiar: http://rocket.csusb.edu/~tmoody/ijap192-Miller.pdf

It's worth a read.

meh. It's mostly a rehash of torture apologetics through the use of oversimplifications and idealized scenarios. On pages 180-1, for example, the author ignores the possibility that the pain and suffering caused by torture could extend for the rest of the tortured person's life, not to mention the psychological damage inflicted. He idealizes it to something like a switch that can just be turned on or off. The case studies, both of which have happy endings, are highly cherry-picked.

Same old same old, just written up in a nice academic package.

eta: To his credit, though, he does admit that those who commit torture should be tried and, if found guilty, punished.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Morally, you cannot attack the terrorists for beheading people when you yourself as a country are acting as bad, when you are killing innocent people in this way.

Not sure what you're referring to exactly. I'm certainly against killing innocent people. In fact, I'm more against it than most of the posters in this thread apparently. I personally feel that the strategic bombing campaigns during WWII were morally repugnant, but some of the people arguing most adamantly against "means justifying ends" torture of prisoners are kind of like "meh, we did what we had to do." One English lawyer, whom I won't identify, even invoked the "well, they started it" justification, which not only raises questions about who "they" is and what "it" is precisely, but reminds me more of disputes in elementary school than between nation-states.

Also, when you refer to terrorists beheading people, we all know that they are murdering innocent people. There isn't even a pretense on the terrorists' part that their victims are guilty of something, or that they have important information which must be extracted (beheading is not a good way of doing that, incidentally, unless ISIL is more technologically advanced than I had thought). I don't think we get too bent out of shape, for example, when the Saudis behead criminals.

 

[anglolawyer]

Glad you agree.



Well, it's one of the reasons we inject humans into the process. There's prosecutors and judges and juries. If we allow legal decisions to be made by computers, it might lead to morally repugnant results.



No, not only is this completely unnecessary, but it is an impossible task. The English language is insufficient (and way too ambiguous) to capture all of the distinctions which must be made. It's better to rely on the moral judgments of prosecutors, judges and juries.

If you want to coin a Sunmaster's law, it is this: No person shall be prosecuted of a crime, let alone convicted, unless he has violated both the letter and the spirit of the law, as determined by other human beings with all relevant information in the matter. I'll note that recent polls show that a sizable majority of Americans think the CIA was justified in its actions. I don't think these opinions are based on ignorance, since support is positively correlated with how closely respondents are the controversy in the news.

I was wondering which dodge you would use. The 'impossible task' is only to be so regarded if you set the bar too high. There are all kinds of laws which fail to 'capture all the distinctions' but whose existence is preferable to no law at all. Furthermore, the moral judgments of prosecutors, judges etc are themselves subject to law (when acting in their professional capacity) and, I assure you, I can draft laws for your review which will have a place for the exercise of judicial discretion if that's what you want. I suggest your refusal to engage in the task of drafting your law is that you realise the whole operation is repugnant once we get down to the details.

 

[sunmaster14]

I was wondering which dodge you would use. The 'impossible task' is only to be so regarded if you set the bar too high. There are all kinds of laws which fail to 'capture all the distinctions' but whose existence is preferable to no law at all. Furthermore, the moral judgments of prosecutors, judges etc are themselves subject to law (when acting in their professional capacity) and, I assure you, I can draft laws for your review which will have a place for the exercise of judicial discretion if that's what you want. I suggest your refusal to engage in the task of drafting your law is that you realise the whole operation is repugnant once we get down to the details.

The article linked by TofuFighter summarizes my position pretty well (I think - I've only had time to skim it). I think that it would be dangerous to formalize torture exemptions in the law. As I indicated before, compliance with the letter of the law should lead to automatic exoneration for a defendant, but the more safe harbors you write in, the more likely it is that a defendant who has violated the spirit of the law will be exonerated (which is not the desired result). I would prefer that torturers be forced to make the decision to violate the letter of the law, but then make the case to their fellow citizens that they have complied with the spirit of the law. They should be forced to take a risk of penalty, but not necessarily be forced to incur a penalty automatically.

 

[anglolawyer]

The article linked by TofuFighter summarizes my position pretty well (I think - I've only had time to skim it). I think that it would be dangerous to formalize torture exemptions in the law. As I indicated before, compliance with the letter of the law should lead to automatic exoneration for a defendant, but the more safe harbors you write in, the more likely it is that a defendant who has violated the spirit of the law will be exonerated (which is not the desired result). I would prefer that torturers be forced to make the decision to violate the letter of the law, but then make the case to their fellow citizens that they have complied with the spirit of the law. They should be forced to take a risk of penalty, but not necessarily be forced to incur a penalty automatically.

This is a very strange approach. Put yourself in the position of the hapless torturer with whom all of us must deeply sympathise. This person is going to want some kind of guarantee of immunity if they are to be expected to go on with the teeth pulling, rectal feeding etc. They should at least have the right in advance to apply for some kind of judicial indemnity, akin to a search warrant or something. If you won't co-operate in drafting the legislation, at least let's design the application form:

To the judge

Re: [name of detained person]

Purpose of application: [e.g. license to torture detained person for up to one hour/week/month/year/indefinitely]

Required information: [set out the information to be sought from detained person]

Reason for application: [set out grounds for believing the detained person has the required information and benefits of acquiring it]

Class of torture for which authority is sought:
CategoryA/CategoryB/CategoryC*

* delete inapplicable categories

Certificate and undertaking of applicant: I certify that having made due enquiry I am satisfied that torturing the applicant is the only practical and timely means by which the required information can be obtained and I undertake to torture the detained person only as authorised by the court and not further.

Order and Indemnity: UPON READING the application and UPON THE APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATE AND UNDERTAKING it is HEREBY ORDERED that the applicant may torture the detained person for one week commencing at 2.00 a.m. (EST) on [date] and ending at the same hour on [date] using Category C class torture and the applicant and his servants and duly authorised agents be hereby wholly INDEMNIFIED and kept free from all prosecutions, claims and/or procedures of whatever nature arising from the said torture.

What's wrong with that? All we need to do is figure out the sizes of the boxes.

 

[tsig]

That's irrelevant. The way you framed the issue, everything depends upon the point of view of the actor. Certainly the people in the CIA thought we were the good guys.

Not sure what you're referring to exactly. I'm certainly against killing innocent people. In fact, I'm more against it than most of the posters in this thread apparently. I personally feel that the strategic bombing campaigns during WWII were morally repugnant, but some of the people arguing most adamantly against "means justifying ends" torture of prisoners are kind of like "meh, we did what we had to do." One English lawyer, whom I won't identify, even invoked the "well, they started it" justification, which not only raises questions about who "they" is and what "it" is precisely, but reminds me more of disputes in elementary school than between nation-states.

Also, when you refer to terrorists beheading people, we all know that they are murdering innocent people. There isn't even a pretense on the terrorists' part that their victims are guilty of something, or that they have important information which must be extracted (beheading is not a good way of doing that, incidentally, unless ISIL is more technologically advanced than I had thought). I don't think we get too bent out of shape, for example, when the Saudis behead criminals.

How can you blame the beheaders because certainly the people doing the beheading thought they were the good guys.

 

[tsig]

The article linked by TofuFighter summarizes my position pretty well (I think - I've only had time to skim it). I think that it would be dangerous to formalize torture exemptions in the law. As I indicated before, compliance with the letter of the law should lead to automatic exoneration for a defendant, but the more safe harbors you write in, the more likely it is that a defendant who has violated the spirit of the law will be exonerated (which is not the desired result). I would prefer that torturers be forced to make the decision to violate the letter of the law, but then make the case to their fellow citizens that they have complied with the spirit of the law. They should be forced to take a risk of penalty, but not necessarily be forced to incur a penalty automatically.

Why do you want to waste time with a procedure that is proven to give inaccurate information?

 

[sunmaster14]

This is a very strange approach. Put yourself in the position of the hapless torturer with whom all of us must deeply sympathise. This person is going to want some kind of guarantee of immunity if they are to be expected to go on with the teeth pulling, rectal feeding etc. They should at least have the right in advance to apply for some kind of judicial indemnity, akin to a search warrant or something. If you won't co-operate in drafting the legislation, at least let's design the application form:

<snip>

What's wrong with that? All we need to do is figure out the sizes of the boxes.

This is the approach Alan Dershowitz advocates. It is also the approach the CIA took, perhaps the first time in its history that it demanded some form of immunity for its contemplated actions. I don't think it's a good policy, but I can understand why the would-be torturers would prefer it. I have to give it more thought, but I think I would want the would-be torturers to take a little more risk.

For example, if torturers are allowed to do torture A, but then exceeded it by going to torture B (a more intense version of A, say), they might be able to defend themselves by saying the excess was accidental. If they had no legal right even to do torture A, then they would have to make the case later that torture A was necessary. If they did torture B too, they would have to defend that as well. It would be more difficult for them to argue that, well, I only meant to do torture A, and I only did torture B by accident. Most people judging them would look at the acts holistically. They wouldn't bucket them into legal actions and then excess, and then be able to treat the excess as accidental.

I don't think what you're proposing (presumably sarcastically) is obviously unreasonable though.

 

[sunmaster14]

How can you blame the beheaders because certainly the people doing the beheading thought they were the good guys.

Take it up with Frozenwolf150. It's his idea.

 

[Crossbow]

That's irrelevant. The way you framed the issue, everything depends upon the point of view of the actor. Certainly the people in the CIA thought we were the good guys.

Excuse, but that is the way you frame it.

You keep on saying that things are so morally ambigious that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine just what is right and what is wrong.

 

[sunmaster14]

Why do you want to waste time with a procedure that is proven to give inaccurate information?

Getting inaccurate information is ok as long as you've got the potential of also getting some accurate information along with it. In any case, I don't think that anything resembling your claim has been proven.

 

[sunmaster14]

Excuse, but that is the way you frame it.

You keep on saying that things are so morally ambigious that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine just what is right and what is wrong.

No. I am not saying that we can't determine right from wrong. I'm saying that general principles of morality are ambiguous. Circumstances matter. Details matter. The "why" matters. I am satisfied to rely on the judgment of my fellow citizens, which is based on a highly evolved, internal moral compass and not on the law per se. I quoted Jonah Goldberg quoting what Bill Buckley said before, but it bears repeating:

If you have one man who pushes old ladies in front of oncoming buses and another man who pushes old ladies out of the way of oncoming buses, it simply will not do to describe them both as the sorts of men who “push old ladies around.”

 

[I Am The Scum]

Getting inaccurate information is ok as long as you've got the potential of also getting some accurate information along with it. In any case, I don't think that anything resembling your claim has been proven.

What are your thoughts on dowsing?

 

[sunmaster14]

What are your thoughts on dowsing?

Whenever I'm on fire, I'm in favor.