Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[sunmaster14]

from the article:

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

Well, I don't have all the facts. I support an investigation, and that has happened twice - three times if you count the Senate Democrats' report. The prosecutors have determined not to prosecute, and I have little reason to doubt their decisions. For those who asked for legal advice regarding various techniques which I consider torture, those who gave that advice, those who authorized use of those techniques, and those who carried them out, I would not prosecute (and if I was on a jury, I would not find them guilty). Given the circumstances at the time, I feel it was a reasonable decision to make, even though I would probably not have made it at the time. I personally was not losing any sleep about another catastrophic attack by al Qaeda. I figured they must have shot their wad on 9/11. But I wasn't there, didn't have access to the information those guys had, etc. So I'm not going to judge them harshly.

For the people who exceeded the guidelines, I am more open to the idea of prosecuting them. Still, it's important to hear their side of the story and understand why they did what they did. We're asking these people to do very difficult jobs which expose them to all kinds of risks, as well as moral quandaries. Just like soldiers and police, I think we owe them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[3point14]

So, despite breaking international law there will be no prosecutions.

How on earth is the US going to sign any international treaty ever again with a straight face? How on earth is any country, absent pressure directly from the US, going to decide to sign a treaty with a country that clearly breaks such treaty's when it suits.

In short, how much credibility does the US administration have now?

Is it yet none?

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

I read that. A lot to take in.

I am not a lawyer, but arguably in the case of the terrorist, the police were defending their own lives and the lives of thousands against an attack that was under way; so the defence of necessity is available.

I wondered while reading it about the defence of necessity. That is, in England and Wales, part of the common law which is an evolving system that develops case by case. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the two examples used would attract the defence (completely destroying the premise of the argument, since the law would prove to be sufficiently adaptable to accommodate such cases).

The other thought that occurred to me was how far those two examples are from what we are discussing on this thread.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Arguing about the legality of "effective torture" is like arguing whether or not fish should be required to wear helmets when they ride bicycles.

 

[tsig]

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.

If you have a way to tell if the torture info is accurate then you didn't need to use torture to begin with.

 

[tsig]

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.

It seems to be:

If we don't do it others will think we're wimps.

 

[RandFan]

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.

• The first thesis of the paper is not, as I understand, in any dispute on this thread. We can imagine an infinite number of universes and scenarios with which to justify a one-off immoral act.
• Unless I'm missing something, quite possible, the author is making a strong case against the argument that the second thesis naturally follows from the first. On the contrary, such laws A.) are arguably a valid slippery slope. B.) The slippery slope has been demonstrated time and again. It seems history has no examples of people who do not abuse the opportunity to inflict harm on others for prurient and/or malign purposes.

The best way to protect citizens from atrocity is for institutions and leaders of the military and police to inveigh against atrocity.

 

[tsig]

Well, I don't have all the facts. I support an investigation, and that has happened twice - three times if you count the Senate Democrats' report. The prosecutors have determined not to prosecute, and I have little reason to doubt their decisions. For those who asked for legal advice regarding various techniques which I consider torture, those who gave that advice, those who authorized use of those techniques, and those who carried them out, I would not prosecute (and if I was on a jury, I would not find them guilty). Given the circumstances at the time, I feel it was a reasonable decision to make, even though I would probably not have made it at the time. I personally was not losing any sleep about another catastrophic attack by al Qaeda. I figured they must have shot their wad on 9/11. But I wasn't there, didn't have access to the information those guys had, etc. So I'm not going to judge them harshly.

For the people who exceeded the guidelines, I am more open to the idea of prosecuting them. Still, it's important to hear their side of the story and understand why they did what they did. We're asking these people to do very difficult jobs which expose them to all kinds of risks, as well as moral quandaries. Just like soldiers and police, I think we owe them the benefit of the doubt.

Should we torture them to determine the truth of their motivations?

 

[tsig]

Arguing about the legality of "effective torture" is like arguing whether or not fish should be required to wear helmets when they ride bicycles.

Yes, once it's admitted that torture doesn't work then all justifications foe doing it fail.

Torture advocates are telling us that their perceived safety trumps all other considerations.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, I don't have all the facts. I support an investigation, and that has happened twice - three times if you count the Senate Democrats' report. The prosecutors have determined not to prosecute, and I have little reason to doubt their decisions. For those who asked for legal advice regarding various techniques which I consider torture, those who gave that advice, those who authorized use of those techniques, and those who carried them out, I would not prosecute (and if I was on a jury, I would not find them guilty).

I don't think you understood the article.

Quite clearly the public official in question must be tried, convicted, and, if found guilty, sentenced for committing the crime of torture.

The author's position that the torturer must be prosecuted and given a trial. If they are found to have performed torture, they should be found guilty and sentenced. Failing to do so institutionalizes the act of torture, which he argues against.

I think the paper is pretty flawed and suffers from a number of logical fallacies. However, on this point, the author is correct.

 

[sunmaster14]

If you have a way to tell if the torture info is accurate then you didn't need to use torture to begin with.

If you had a computer science background, then the concept of a one-way hash and its application in many areas of life would be immediately obvious to you.

For example, the name on the grave where the gold is buried:

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't think you understood the article.

​

The author's position that the torturer must be prosecuted and given a trial. If they are found to have performed torture, they should be found guilty and sentenced. Failing to do so institutionalizes the act of torture, which he argues against.

And going further on in the article:

Naturally, the defence of necessity is available to them. I am not a lawyer, but
arguably in the case of the terrorist, the police were defending their own lives
and the lives of thousands against an attack that was under way; so the defence
of necessity is available. But even if it is not available, as perhaps in the case of
the beating of the car thief, nevertheless, there are (to say the least) mitigating
circumstances, and the sentence should be commuted to, say, one day in prison.
Moreover, he (or she) should resign or be dismissed from their position; public
institutions cannot suffer among their ranks those who commit serious crimes.

The author obviously considers the legal exposure to punishment to be something of a formality in cases of justified torture. Prosecutors decline to prosecute based on the presence of mitigating circumstances as well. I do think that there should always be a thorough investigation by disinterested 3rd parties though.

 

[jimbob]

If you had a computer science background, then the concept of a one-way hash and its application in many areas of life would be immediately obvious to you.

For example, the name on the grave where the gold is buried:

And if you are after specific information - say members of a terrorist cell - how does an innocent person stop the torture other than eventually making up information? Why wouldn't a terrorist also do that?

This is what has historically happened whenever torture has been widespread.

It is effective at getting people to admit to crimes and to implicate other people.

 

[Upchurch]

The author obviously considers the legal exposure to punishment to be something of a formality in cases of justified torture.

The punishment, perhaps, but not the prosecution. Although, you'll note that even the minimal punishment he describes includes removing that person from a position of power.

You'll also note that he refers to torture as a "serious crime".

 

[tsig]

If you have a way to tell if the torture info is accurate then you didn't need to use torture to begin with.

If you had a computer science background, then the concept of a one-way hash and its application in many areas of life would be immediately obvious to you.

For example, the name on the grave where the gold is buried:

From the link:

A cryptographic hash function is a hash function which is considered practically impossible to invert, that is, to recreate the input data from its hash value alone. These one-way hash functions have been called "the workhorses of modern cryptography".[1] The input data is often called the message, and the hash value is often called the message digest or simply the digest.

Your reference to cryptoanalysis and an Eastwood movie fails to answer my post.



I conclude from your frantic dancing the spot is getting hot.

 

[RandFan]

For the people who exceeded the guidelines, I am more open to the idea of prosecuting them. Still, it's important to hear their side of the story and understand why they did what they did. We're asking these people to do very difficult jobs which expose them to all kinds of risks, as well as moral quandaries. Just like soldiers and police, I think we owe them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not seeing a nexus between the paper that makes the case for a one-off emergency situation as justification for torture and what happened here.

Could you please explain?

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm not seeing a nexus between the paper that makes the case for a one-off emergency situation as justification for torture and what happened here.

Could you please explain?

The explanation is that sometimes the ends justify the means. There is nothing magical about it literally being a ticking time bomb situation. It's just that the ticking time bomb scenario helps clarify the issue.

It reminds me of this old joke:

They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if he paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.'

The CIA thought they were racing against the clock to defuse the next al Qaeda attack. Whether they were correct in that belief, or whether their methods actually did some good, is somewhat besides the point hindsight, although not entirely. Other factors which enter into the moral calculus are the degree/severity of torture (the CIA kind was relatively mild, as torture goes), and the culpability of the targets.

In the first case study in the paper, the car thief wasn't actually such a bad person. He only meant to steal a car, not put a child's life in danger. How much easier would have been for the police if he was thought to have been a child killer already?

 

[sunmaster14]

The punishment, perhaps, but not the prosecution. Although, you'll note that even the minimal punishment he describes includes removing that person from a position of power.

I pretty much agree, although each case needs to be examined carefully and independently. These should be tough decisions for the people that make them, and they should involve some degree of sacrifice. I think they have already sacrificed enough though.

You'll also note that he refers to torture as a "serious crime".

It is a serious crime. It is a crime which should be taken very seriously. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be punished harshly though.

 

[Wudang]

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.

 

[RandFan]

¹The explanation is that sometimes the ends justify the means. There is nothing magical about it literally being a ticking time bomb situation. It's just that the ticking time bomb scenario helps clarify the issue.

It reminds me of this old joke:

²The CIA thought they were racing against the clock to defuse the next al Qaeda attack. ³Whether they were correct in that belief, or whether ⁴their methods actually did some good, is somewhat besides the point hindsight, although not entirely. ⁵Other factors which enter into the moral calculus are the degree/severity of torture (the CIA kind was relatively mild, as torture goes), and the culpability of the targets.

⁶In the first case study in the paper, the car thief wasn't actually such a bad person. He only meant to steal a car, not put a child's life in danger. How much easier would have been for the police if he was thought to have been a child killer already?

1. I've stipulated to consequentialism for the purposes of this discussion so that's neither here nor there. The paper does not simply appeal to consequentialism as you seem to be doing.
2. The paper takes great pains to point out that morally justifiable torture is only possible in a one-off emergency scenario where there is clear and uncontroversial danger. In both cases there was already a known and identified danger. There was little doubt that failure to act would result in death.
3. By the standards of the paper they could only torture one time to avert a known threat. The paper does not make the case that it's okay to torture as part of a fishing expedition (something bad might happen if we don't torture). To make his case for the first thesis the author states explicitly "Accordingly, I am assuming that the routine use of torture is not morally justified"
4. Hence the second part of the paper. The author makes clear that the moral justification for a one-off emergency situation cannot be justification for repeated and systematic torture.
5. The paper makes no such rationalization other than to delineate between minimalist and maximamlist torture.
6. The character of the thief is not at issue. The imminent harm to the child and refusal to cooperate on the part of the thief are the only salient points.

I urge you to go back and carefully re-read the entire paper.