Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[RandFan]

I suspect that respondents would be more willing to torture an innocent adult than an innocent child.

The study did not provide any such false choice. I suspect that respondents would be more willing to not torture ether of the two if that was one of the options, right?

The participants were asked what sort of interrogation they would condone, from very mild (asking questions) to very severe (which could be “aversive, degrading, painful, and in some cases cause permanent physical and psychological scars”).

 

[RandFan]

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.

Torture produces lots of information. Most of it wrong. Resources must be expended to verify the information. It's not a choice between a method that cannot get information and methods that do. It's a choice between a method that is counterproductive, is dehumanizing and debauching, can be abused, can cause serious harm to the subject, might cause an innocent person irreparable harm.

You've utterly failed to make any case for torture.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

What is unreasonable, I suggest, is to expect your torture squad to be exposed to undue risk. One cannot insulate them from all risk because the job carries individual responsibility, like that of a surgeon or military commander, but it follows that once you are willing to countenance torture as a tolerated policy you must put in place the appropriate legal provisions and safeguards. I don't see the torturer being in a better position without laws in your example above. On the contrary, his position seems highly precarious as, perhaps, we are about to find out.

I am being only half-sarcastic as I do think focusing on the banalities of the logistics and legalities of such things as torture, or the holocaust or even the death penalty is one good way of throwing them into sharp relief. But, as a good functionary, I am also warming to the task. I suggest these classification:

A torture involving physical harm or pain
B torture involving psychological harm or torment
C other forms of lesser activity: practical jokes, shouting 'boo' loudly and unexpectedly, the comfy chair, waking the detainee in the middle of the night and telling him he has a phone call, pretending to shoot someone in the next room, or actually doing so (that might count as cat. B actually), secretly feeding him pork/bacon as the case may be, explaining there are no virgins etc etc

We don't need to be sidetracked by these details, interesting though they are. I still don't see why you won't countenance actual laws.

 

[fishbob]

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.

How much is a little more? Because I am not the only one who might do something rash if I see a Rectal Feeder on a plane with a blender.

Yes, that is ridiculous. So is your argument.
You want a little, but not too much, legal cover for our people to perform ineffective enhanced interrogation. When we think we are the good guys. After Fox News and the other mindless media spreads their infotaining propaganda.

 

[Crossbow]

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:

Actually, you did say that we cannot determine right from wrong, and you went on to say that you are a hypocrite (see below).

Therefore, you are not in a position to make decisons about how torture should be applied.

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.

 

[3point14]

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.

Doesn't everyone?

I'd be interested in finding any agency attached to any government that thinks it's the baddies. I don't think that exists.

 

[3point14]

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.

Do you think 'We'll work out what the law is once we think you might have broken it' is a good system?

 

[3point14]

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

You think your need for water increases the chances of finding any?

This logic explains how you think about torture. When your country really, really needs it to, it works.

Hey, it does in movies.

 

[jimbob]

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?

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

You think your need for water increases the chances of finding any?

This logic explains how you think about torture. When your country really, really needs it to, it works.

Hey, it does in movies.

And if we are talking about a ticking bomb scenario* the terrorist would know that they only need to hold out for a short time before the bomb goes off.





*unlikely, as presumably a terrorist would have contingency plans based on being captured - especially if they suspect torture might be involved.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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

No, dowsing. But I'm going to assume you already knew that and are just trying to shy out of an issue that exposes the flaws in your reasoning.

You are promoting a type an ideology that cannot find the power to draw conclusions while simultaneously arguing in favor of extreme actions in the face of said ignorance. I can't help but wonder if you employ this thought process in other aspects of life.

Do you occasionally activate the fire alarm in public buildings? "After all," you might say, "Just because I do not see a fire, does not mean it is not there. We must do whatever we can to save ourselves from this hot menace!"

Would you feel the same way if one of your family members was accused of being a terrorist? It might sound crazy, but even though there is no indication of your mother's guilt, there is still that chance that she is Osama Bin Laden's successor.

That last question was a serious one.

 

[Upchurch]

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?

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

This sums up torture apologetics nicely.


sumaster14, is it possible that you don't know what dowsing is?

Will it find water? If you keep trying long enough, odds are that, yes, you'll eventually find water. It probably on par with randomly digging holes in the ground. Are the much more reliable methods that will work more quickly, absolutely.

eta: This is most definitely not the way you'll want to find water if you ever find yourself on fire.

 

[sunmaster14]

You think your need for water increases the chances of finding any?

This logic explains how you think about torture. When your country really, really needs it to, it works.

Hey, it does in movies.

It was an attempt at a pun, but I realize now that "dowsing" is not the most common spelling of "dousing" (although it is a legitimate variant).

 

[3point14]

It was an attempt at a pun, but I realize now that "dowsing" is not the most common spelling of "dousing" (although it is a legitimate variant).

Okay, up to speed now. Being doused probably a good thing when on fire.

sorry.

 

[sunmaster14]

And if we are talking about a ticking bomb scenario* the terrorist would know that they only need to hold out for a short time before the bomb goes off.

*unlikely, as presumably a terrorist would have contingency plans based on being captured - especially if they suspect torture might be involved.

The trick is that we'd put out the word that Upchurch is in charge of interrogations for the US, and that suspects are typically served milk and cookies and invited to chat about various interesting topics, like "if you were a ticking bomb, where would you think is the safest place to hide?" But in reality, this would happen to the unsuspecting terrorists:

 

[sunmaster14]

No, dowsing. But I'm going to assume you already knew that and are just trying to shy out of an issue that exposes the flaws in your reasoning.

You are promoting a type an ideology that cannot find the power to draw conclusions while simultaneously arguing in favor of extreme actions in the face of said ignorance. I can't help but wonder if you employ this thought process in other aspects of life.

Do you occasionally activate the fire alarm in public buildings? "After all," you might say, "Just because I do not see a fire, does not mean it is not there. We must do whatever we can to save ourselves from this hot menace!"

I'm not seeing your logic here. There are probability weighted costs and benefits in any decision. Choosing a course of action which has a low probability of success in one case has no bearing on the calculus in completely unrelated cases.

Would you feel the same way if one of your family members was accused of being a terrorist? It might sound crazy, but even though there is no indication of your mother's guilt, there is still that chance that she is Osama Bin Laden's successor.

That last question was a serious one.

As I stand today, yes, I am willing to take the risk that one of my family members is falsely accused (or even correctly accused) of being a terrorist and treated accordingly. Given the condition that my family member has already been accused, then no, I would prefer we had more guarantees of humane treatment. When and if this latter condition holds, you can fairly call me a hypocrite if you like.

 

[Upchurch]

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?

It was an attempt at a pun, but I realize now that "dowsing" is not the most common spelling of "dousing" (although it is a legitimate variant).

uh-huh. So, what are your thoughts on dowsing?

Does the ratio of accurate-to-inaccurate information matter or does the fact that accurate information might be obtained at all justify the use of torture?

 

[sunmaster14]

uh-huh. So, what are your thoughts on dowsing?

Do you honestly believe that I would believe in dowsing? I mean you're either not that observant, or you're just trying to insult me.

Does the ratio of accurate-to-inaccurate information matter or does the fact that accurate information might be obtained at all justify the use of torture?

Yes, it matters. If the signal to noise ratio is too low (or equivalently, the probability of success is too low), then torture would not be justified. I wouldn't do it for less than a 1% chance of succeeding, unless you're talking about literally hundreds of lives. And I concede that when you get that low in probability, it's far from clear that torture is the optimal course in any case, since humans are quite bad at accurately assessing probabilities that low. Maybe 5% or 10% should be the floor.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it matters. If the signal to noise ratio is too low (or equivalently, the probability of success is too low), then torture would not be justified. I wouldn't do it for less than a 1% chance of succeeding, unless you're talking about literally hundreds of lives.

How does the number of lives involved make any difference? It doesn't change the chance of torture succeeding if 1 or 1 million lives are on the line.

Why not use, instead, other methods that have better track record?

And I concede that when you get that low in probability, it's far from clear that torture is the optimal course in any case, since humans are quite bad at accurately assessing probabilities that low. Maybe 5% or 10% should be the floor.

Even that low?

Presumably, you don't know the signal-to-noise ratio of torture. Why consider it at all, since it is an unknown?

 

[sunmaster14]

What is unreasonable, I suggest, is to expect your torture squad to be exposed to undue risk. One cannot insulate them from all risk because the job carries individual responsibility, like that of a surgeon or military commander, but it follows that once you are willing to countenance torture as a tolerated policy you must put in place the appropriate legal provisions and safeguards. I don't see the torturer being in a better position without laws in your example above. On the contrary, his position seems highly precarious as, perhaps, we are about to find out.

I am being only half-sarcastic as I do think focusing on the banalities of the logistics and legalities of such things as torture, or the holocaust or even the death penalty is one good way of throwing them into sharp relief. But, as a good functionary, I am also warming to the task. I suggest these classification:

A torture involving physical harm or pain
B torture involving psychological harm or torment
C other forms of lesser activity: practical jokes, shouting 'boo' loudly and unexpectedly, the comfy chair, waking the detainee in the middle of the night and telling him he has a phone call, pretending to shoot someone in the next room, or actually doing so (that might count as cat. B actually), secretly feeding him pork/bacon as the case may be, explaining there are no virgins etc etc

We don't need to be sidetracked by these details, interesting though they are. I still don't see why you won't countenance actual laws.

I refer you to the paper that TofuFighter first linked. I am fully in agreement with it. In particular, please focus on the section entitled "THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR LEGALISED AND
INSTITUTIONALISED TORTURE" beginning on the bottom of p. 187.

 

[Upchurch]

I refer you to the paper that TofuFighter first linked. I am fully in agreement with it. In particular, please focus on the section entitled "THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR LEGALISED AND
INSTITUTIONALISED TORTURE" beginning on the bottom of p. 187.

from the article:

In such an emergency the military or police offi cers involved will need to break the law on this one occasion. But in itself this is a small price to pay; and a price the police, the military, and the politicians have shown themselves only too willing to pay in situations that are far from being emergencies.
One final matter. What should be done to the military officers, police officers
or other public officials who tortures the terrorist if—after saving the city—their crime is discovered? Quite clearly the public official in question must be tried, convicted, and, if found guilty, sentenced for committing the crime of torture.

You support the prosecution of those people who have tortured others?