Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[RandFan]

I'm glad that you can read the author's mind. Perhaps you should try for the million dollar prize.

I don't need to read the authors mind as he is explicit in his assertion that torture is an existential threat to Democratic liberal institutions.

 

[sunmaster14]

Jesus Christ, read what he wrote. The author is explicit in his reasons why the routine use of torture is morally impermissible. It debauches the torturers and the institutions.

The author is not explicit at all. He barely makes the argument that legalized torture in general will degrade the torturers, as well as the institutions of a liberal democracy. He instead refers the reader to other people's arguments. He does focus on the specific case of torture warrants, but even here he is primarily rebutting specific arguments (by Dershowitz and others) that compare them to wiretaps.

The author states his assumption for the first part of the paper and THEN in the second part argues why he does not simply assume.

No, that's just wrong.

That is his stated purpose. To disengage one from the other.

Nope.

The author makes clear that NOTHING follows from a one-off emergency situation and then proceeds to detail the dehumanizing and catastrophic effects of torture.

No, you are misconstruing him. He is trying to rebut preemptively the moral absolutist argument that even conceding one-off justifications for torture will lead ineluctably to more routine use and dehumanizing and catastrophic effects. He's trying to separate out the short-term effects from the long-term effects by sticking to a clean one-off situation. Although he clearly agrees that the long-term effects of routine torture will be bad (and he assumes of course that it's immoral too), that is not the point of bringing it up in the first 2/3 of his paper. And in the final 1/3 of the paper, he is only referring to legalization. He even rebuts the argument that a failure to legalize torture in exceptional circumstances might lead to routine use (because, for example, that it will remain in the shadows where it can flourish).

 

[RandFan]

The author is not explicit at all. He barely makes the argument that legalized torture in general will degrade the torturers, as well as the institutions of a liberal democracy. He instead refers the reader to other people's arguments. He does focus on the specific case of torture warrants, but even here he is primarily rebutting specific arguments (by Dershowitz and others) that compare them to wiretaps.

No, that's just wrong.

Nope.

No, you are misconstruing him. He is trying to rebut preemptively the moral absolutist argument that even conceding one-off justifications for torture will lead ineluctably to more routine use and dehumanizing and catastrophic effects. He's trying to separate out the short-term effects from the long-term effects by sticking to a clean one-off situation. Although he clearly agrees that the long-term effects of routine torture will be bad (and he assumes of course that it's immoral too), that is not the point of bringing it up in the first 2/3 of his paper. And in the final 1/3 of the paper, he is only referring to legalization. He even rebuts the argument that a failure to legalize torture in exceptional circumstances might lead to routine use (because, for example, that it will remain in the shadows where it can flourish).

1. The author states that it is a "threat do democratic liberal institutions". What do you think a "threat" means?
2. This is just gainsaying and is easily demonstrated. If the author simply assumed the position you give him then there would be no need for the second thesis.
3. Automatic gainsaying that is rebutted by the words of the author.
4. The authors own words are " torture ought not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized."

Morality is defined simply as what we ought or ought not do.

 

[RandFan]

I don't need to read the authors mind as he is explicit in his assertion that torture is an existential threat to Democratic liberal institutions.

It is a fact that the author claims that torture is an existential threat to liberal democratic institutions.

 

[sunmaster14]

The author states that it is a "threat do democratic liberal institutions". What do you think a "threat" means?

He's referring specifically to torture warrants (as I've already pointed out), which, by the way, are considered to be one-off, and not routine. A warrant requires arguing successfully in front of a judge based on the merits of the particular case.

This is just gainsaying and is easily demonstrated. If the author simply assumed the position you give him then there would be no need for the second thesis.

There are no assumptions made in the first part of the paper which he then goes on to prove in the second part.

<snip>

Morality is defined simply as what we ought or ought not do.

I think you ought to consult a dictionary.

 

[sunmaster14]

It is a fact that the author claims that torture is an existential threat to liberal democratic institutions.

The word existential does not appear in the paper.

 

[RandFan]

He's referring specifically to torture warrants (as I've already pointed out), which, by the way, are considered to be one-off, and not routine. A warrant requires arguing successfully in front of a judge based on the merits of the particular case.

There are no assumptions made in the first part of the paper which he then goes on to prove in the second part.

I think you ought to consult a dictionary.

1. The author states explicitly that warrants are a threat.
2. The author explicitly uses the word "assumes".
3. I think you OUGHT to.

a particular system of values and principles of conduct

 

[RandFan]

The word existential does not appear in the paper.

The word "threat" does in fact appear in the paper.

 

[Olowkow]

It's ironic that torture advocates are complaining about mistreatment on a discussion forum.

Nominated for pith.

I think that if Obama isn't going to prosecute Cheney, ect. he should at least pardon them as a way to show that what they did was criminal and the only reason they aren't in prison is because of a Presidential pardon. Until then, Cheney can point to the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted as "evidence" that he isn't a war criminal.

I agree that he should "at least" pardon them in order to make the statement that they have committed crimes. If they refuse the pardon then, try the *******s.

BUT:

I think your strategy would produce even more outrage. We already know that having political power shields a person from criminal prosecution, your strategy would be like the President bragging about that fact. "We know you're guilty, but you're one of us, so you get to go free."

It would be nice for a president to have the courage to simply prosecute the previous administration for the crimes that they committed and let those who are guilty suffer the full consequences.

Until then, the persons sitting as president will continue to just ignore those crimes.

....I would prefer that Obama just go for the trials "of the century" and poke the torture defenders in the eye. The way Obama has been poking eyes lately, he just might do it.

 

[sunmaster14]

The word "threat" does in fact appear in the paper.

How about the words "non sequitur?"

 

[TofuFighter]

And we do know that 20% of the captives were acknowledged to be innocent

Of the more than 700 men held at Guantanamo Bay since
2002, many are now acknowledged as “merely guilty of being in the wrong place
at the wrong time.” Originally described as “the worst of the worst,” many were
subjected to torture. Now, more than 400 of these men have been released or
cleared for release (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2009).

Subtle language use, like referring to captives as 'detainees', is not accidental.

 

[Upchurch]

I'd just like to point out that the paper is neither authoritative nor very persuasive. It fails on one of its basic assumptions alone.

It's like arguing about the technical aspects of the aether theory of light propagation. If it doesn't actually speak to the reality of the situation, who cares?

eta: The only thing I find interesting about that paper is that sunmaster14 says he threw in with it 100%. After all, the author's thesis requires the CIA and probably the Bush Administration to be prosecuted for their crimes of committing torture.

 

[bit_pattern]

I think we are discussing the wrong thing here. I don't doubt that torture is effective in some cases and might even save lives. Otherwise it wouldn't have been done for thousands of years.

Good god man, have you been paying any attention at all???

Astrology, Dowsing, fortune telling and Tarrot cards have all been done for thousands of years...

Oh, c'mon now, just look at all those witches exposed by the Spanish Inquisition...

 

[sunmaster14]

I'd just like to point out that the paper is neither authoritative nor very persuasive. It fails on one of its basic assumptions alone.

Which one?

<snip>

eta: The only thing I find interesting about that paper is that sunmaster14 says he threw in with it 100%. After all, the author's thesis requires the CIA and probably the Bush Administration to be prosecuted for their crimes of committing torture.

It doesn't require that they be prosecuted. Only that they be exposed to risk of prosecution, which they clearly were and are. A prosecutor exercising his discretion not to prosecute is not really any different from a jury exercising nullification, or a judge giving a light or suspended sentence. All are based on human judgments about the level of moral culpability of the defendant.

 

[anglolawyer]

Which one?



It doesn't require that they be prosecuted. Only that they be exposed to risk of prosecution, which they clearly were and are. A prosecutor exercising his discretion not to prosecute is not really any different from a jury exercising nullification, or a judge giving a light or suspended sentence. All are based on human judgments about the level of moral culpability of the defendant.

That will go down well with America's treaty partners -

You: yes we carried out torture on a massive scale, in secret, but don't worry, we prosecuted those sumbitches when we caught them!
Us: Oh great, what did they get?
You: Er.. nuthin'

 

[sunmaster14]

That will go down will with America's treaty partners -

You: yes we carried out torture on a massive scale, in secret but don't worry, we prosecuted those sumbitches when we caught them!
Us: Oh great, what did they get?
You: Er.. nuthin'

"Massive?" We're talking about a country of 300MM people torturing a handful of hardened terrorists (and mistreating a few dozen suspects) in the aftermath of the most devastating terrorist attack in history. A little perspective please?

And I honestly doubt that the leaders of our treaty partners give a rat's ass except for the partisan-driven political pressure from their leftist constituencies. So they'll mouth a few words of concern for public consumption. In private, they'll express far more concern about partisan gamesmanship in the Senate leading to the release of confidential information.

 

[anglolawyer]

"Massive?" We're talking about a country of 300MM people torturing a handful of hardened terrorists (and mistreating a few dozen suspects) in the aftermath of the most devastating terrorist attack in history. A little perspective please?

And I honestly doubt that the leaders of our treaty partners give a rat's ass except for the partisan-driven political pressure from their leftist constituencies. So they'll mouth a few words of concern for public consumption. In private, they'll express far more concern about partisan gamesmanship in the Senate leading to the release of confidential information.

Yes, massive.

Let's see how it plays out. We are talking long term. You guys didn't get your war in Syria because of what you did in Iraq ten years before. I don't pretend to know the consequences but, as Marx said, everything is related to everything else so I bet there will be something. Heh, maybe you're right and nothing bad will happen other than a few lefties getting upset and what do they matter? Land of the free, home of the brave. Or maybe not so much.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes, massive.

Let's see how it plays out. We are talking long term.

The effect decays to zero with time, exponentially. I'm not particularly impressed by appeals to the long-term, notwithstanding the apocryphal story of Zhou Enlai's quip in the early 1970s that it was "too early to say" what the impact of the French Revolution was.

In the finance industry, at least in my neck of the woods, "long-term investor" is really just a euphemism for unsuccessful short-term speculator. So you can keep waiting and hoping for the US to get its comeuppance. It will be a long wait.

 

[anglolawyer]

The effect decays to zero with time, exponentially. I'm not particularly impressed by appeals to the long-term, notwithstanding the apocryphal story of Zhou Enlai's quip in the early 1970s that it was "too early to say" what the impact of the French Revolution was.

In the finance industry, at least in my neck of the woods, "long-term investor" is really just a euphemism for unsuccessful short-term speculator. So you can keep waiting and hoping for the US to get its comeuppance. It will be a long wait.

I thought that was Trotsky. Could be wrong.

I am not hoping for anything. What makes you think that? How well do you think the reputational effects of Nazism are decaying with time?

 

[RandFan]

How about the words "non sequitur?"

It's a fact that the author states explicitly a "threat" to democratic liberal institutions. The Author goes to great lengths to use language that leaves no room for equivocation.