Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[sunmaster14]

I thought that was Trotsky. Could be wrong.

The google machine says Zhou Enlai. It also says that he misunderstood the question, and that he was really referring to student riots in Paris in 1968.

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?

Well, I think the proper analogue is the reputation of the Germans. The impression of Nazism today probably coincides with their own impression of themselves. It's more of a definition than a stigma. I mean they weren't really tainted by their murderous racism. It was an intrinsic part of the ideology.

 

[3point14]

Ultimately it might lead to a more insular USA charging off to the right and leaving the rest of the world unmolested as they will be unable to gain any traction for their 'moral' crusades overseas having been shown, as a nation, to have no morals at all. That's not to denigrate those in the US who would like to see justice done and international commitments met however these people are clearly outnumbered and outmuscled by those who don't see anything wrong with torturing people in contravention of international agreements to which the USA is a willing signatory.

Oh, and any comments from the Whitehouse referencing Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine now have all the weight of a feather in a snowstorm.

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

First of all, I was referring to the word "existential" which you added but does not appear in the paper at all. I think this is a good indication that your own thoughts and biases are seriously intruding into your interpretation of the paper, which I assert is completely wrong.

As for the word "threat" it is used only once in the argument against a torture policy, and, as I have already claimed, it was used in reference to the use of torture warrants (which, by definition, is not a routine use).

But putting aside what you think the author's purpose was, please excerpt his best argument against what the CIA did.

 

[anglolawyer]

The google machine says Zhou Enlai. It also says that he misunderstood the question, and that he was really referring to student riots in Paris in 1968.

May have to concede that one. Trotsky did say this, apparently (I just found out):

“The United States is not only the strongest, but also the most terrified country.”

Well, I think the proper analogue is the reputation of the Germans. The impression of Nazism today probably coincides with their own impression of themselves. It's more of a definition than a stigma. I mean they weren't really tainted by their murderous racism. It was an intrinsic part of the ideology.

Well, for a long time, maybe not so much anymore, but certainly for decades, people did not really distinguish between Nazis and Germans I think. They were all nasty Germans and people hated them. I have no idea where you get the highlighted bit from, not that we need to go there especially.

Maybe there will be no consequences for the US. Other folk will go on hating you a bit more than they already do but so what? Right?

 

[Upchurch]

Which one?

The same one you have been avoiding all thread: That torture is both effective at obtaining good information and finding good information quickly. So much so that is is more efficient than other interrogation methods. In other words, that torture is even necessary as an interrogation technique.

It doesn't require that they be prosecuted.

It clearly does. Like most articles of faith, you are cherry-picking the bits that agree with what you want to believe and iignoring the bits that don't.

 

[bit_pattern]

torturing a handful of hardened terrorists (and mistreating a few dozen suspects)

I love how torture gets downgraded to "mistreating" when your forced to acknowledge the innocent people involved - although, if you had even a modicum of respect for the foundational cornerstones of Western civilisation you'd call them ALL innocent because none of them have ever faced trial to prove their guilt. But, hey, you're a PATRIOT!

 

[RandFan]

First of all, I was referring to the word "existential" which you added but does not appear in the paper at all. I think this is a good indication that your own thoughts and biases are seriously intruding into your interpretation of the paper, which I assert is completely wrong.

As for the word "threat" it is used only once in the argument against a torture policy, and, as I have already claimed, it was used in reference to the use of torture warrants (which, by definition, is not a routine use).

But putting aside what you think the author's purpose was, please excerpt his best argument against what the CIA did.

I did add the word existential. That does not, in the least, change the authors abhorrence of warrants . You are the one that suggested that warrants were an extension of morally permissible torture. The author strongly disagrees. The author makes no case for a continum between a one-off emergency situation and a relaxing of prohibitions against torture be that relaxing warrants, routine use, institutionalization, legalization. The CIA adopted torture as part of their institution and called it legal. The author makes clear that what the CIA did could not be construed as morally permissible.

From the paper.

• It is surely obvious that to re-introduce, and indeed protect the practice of torture, by legalising and institutionalising it, would be to catapult the security agencies of liberal democracies back into the dark ages from whence they came.
• For example, Luban and Waldron have drawn attention to the moral inconsistency and inherent danger in liberal democratic states legalising and institutionalising torture, a practice that strikes at the very heart of the fundamental liberal value of individual autonomy. They have also detailed the tendency for a torture culture to develop in organisations in which torture is tolerated and/or legalised, a culture in which the excesses of torturing the innocent and the like take place, e.g., as in the US army detention centre in Abu Ghraib in Iraq and the Israeli secret service (General Security Service). Nevertheless, I do want to deal with some residual issues.
• the arguments of Luban and Waldron, that legalisation/institutionalisation of torture would be profoundly damaging to liberal democratic institutions

Okay, to sum up, the Author goes to great pains to cover all of the bases and avoid equivocation by using the words "routine" and "institutionalization". He talks about a torture "culture" while specifically referencing Abu Ghraib. He also takes great pains to paint the damage from torture in stark terms. "profoundly damaging", "inherent danger", "dark ages".


I can find nothing in the paper that paints a continuum or a grey area when it comes to our institutions okaying and routinely using torture.

 

[jimbob]

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

Sunmaster has asserted away that problem...

So the thousands who confessed to being witches after being tortured really were witches then?

This isn't about confessions. It's about information whose veracity can be independently verified. It's actually a tautology that information which cannot be verified has no value. That's an important point. Please let me know if you need further explication.

Almost anybody will talk. They will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, not the truth.

Why would an enemy need to be tortured to give you false information? Why wouldn't he be willing to give it freely, if it will waste your resources?

 

[sunmaster14]

I did add the word existential. That does not, in the least, change the authors abhorrence of warrants . You are the one that suggested that warrants were an extension of morally permissible torture.
The author strongly disagrees.

And so do I. I never suggested that warrants were properly an extension of morally permissible torture. I suggested that it was a natural and logical (but in any case flawed) extension. You completely inverted my point (which I've already pointed out to you once, but you appear to see what you want to see when you read, rather than what's actually there).

The author makes no case for a continum between a one-off emergency situation and a relaxing of prohibitions against torture be that relaxing warrants, routine use, institutionalization, legalization.

He doesn't, but the case is easy to make for he makes it clear that there is a continuum upon which the degree of torture exists, as well as the worthiness of the expected results from the torture. He absolutely does not make the case against an extension. He only makes a case against its legalization (which I agree with, and I think anglolawyer does not).

The CIA adopted torture as part of their institution and called it legal. The author makes clear that what the CIA did could not be construed as morally permissible.

Once again, you are conflating "routine" with "legalized." The author indicates that he thinks routine torture is not morally permissible (actually that's going too far; he states that he will assume that), but he does not argue against it. The argument he makes is against legalizing torture in exceptional circumstances, which is a different kettle of fish.

From the paper.

• It is surely obvious that to re-introduce, and indeed protect the practice of torture, by legalising and institutionalising it, would be to catapult the security agencies of liberal democracies back into the dark ages from whence they came.
• For example, Luban and Waldron have drawn attention to the moral inconsistency and inherent danger in liberal democratic states legalising and institutionalising torture, a practice that strikes at the very heart of the fundamental liberal value of individual autonomy. They have also detailed the tendency for a torture culture to develop in organisations in which torture is tolerated and/or legalised, a culture in which the excesses of torturing the innocent and the like take place, e.g., as in the US army detention centre in Abu Ghraib in Iraq and the Israeli secret service (General Security Service). Nevertheless, I do want to deal with some residual issues.
• the arguments of Luban and Waldron, that legalisation/institutionalisation of torture would be profoundly damaging to liberal democratic institutions

Okay, to sum up, the Author goes to great pains to cover all of the bases and avoid equivocation by using the words "routine" and "institutionalization". He talks about a torture "culture" while specifically referencing Abu Ghraib. He also takes great pains to paint the damage from torture in stark terms. "profoundly damaging", "inherent danger", "dark ages".

Also, even here, where the argument is against legalization, he is mostly just referring to other people's arguments. The only place he makes his own argument is on the torture warrant idea.

I can find nothing in the paper that paints a continuum or a grey area when it comes to our institutions okaying and routinely using torture.

See above for my explanation of the continuum idea.

 

[sunmaster14]

The same one you have been avoiding all thread: That torture is both effective at obtaining good information and finding good information quickly. So much so that is is more efficient than other interrogation methods. In other words, that torture is even necessary as an interrogation technique.

The Princeton essay made short work of that. The burden is really on you to show that there is ALWAYS an effective alternative to torture. I mean what alternative are you thinking of in the first case study in this paper? You have about 20 minutes to find the location of the car. What will you do? What can you do?

ETA: Also, this brings me to an idea that I had meant to bring up earlier. The symmetry involved in reward vs punishment. Do you believe that offering a reward for information is effective?

 

[jimbob]

You have accepted that confessions obtained under torture are worthless. Why do you not think other information is somehow valid? I am not saying that people never tell the truth under torture - if they did it would be a reprehensible, but effective way of eliminating false information. Many posters have pointed out that most people will say what they think the torturer wants to hear. If they are innocent, they will have to make something up.

 

[sunmaster14]

You have accepted that confessions obtained under torture are worthless. Why do you not think other information is somehow valid? I am not saying that people never tell the truth under torture - if they did it would be a reprehensible, but effective way of eliminating false information. Many posters have pointed out that most people will say what they think the torturer wants to hear. If they are innocent, they will have to make something up.

Because other information can be tested. If a confession could be tested, then you wouldn't actually need the confession.

 

[jimbob]

The Princeton essay made short work of that. The burden is really on you to show that there is ALWAYS an effective alternative to torture. I mean what alternative are you thinking of in the first case study in this paper? You have about 20 minutes to find the location of the car. What will you do? What can you do?

ETA: Also, this brings me to an idea that I had meant to bring up earlier. The symmetry involved in reward vs punishment. Do you believe that offering a reward for information is effective?

There isn't enough information to say whether it worked or even happened, let alone like that. A policeman who is willing to beat up a suspect is perfectly capable of making up a story to justify his habit of beating up suspects.

 

[RandFan]

And so do I. I never suggested that warrants were properly an extension of morally permissible torture. I suggested that it was a natural and logical (but in any case flawed) extension.

I honestly don't know what this means. Further, the author does not say "flawed". He makes clear that they are a threat.

He doesn't, but the case is easy to make for he makes it clear that there is a continuum upon which the degree of torture exists, as well as the worthiness of the expected results from the torture. He absolutely does not make the case against an extension. He only makes a case against its legalization (which I agree with, and I think anglolawyer does not).

You keep trying to hide behind the word "legalization". As I've noted time and again, the author goes to great lengths to take away that hiding place. He uses the word "routine". He uses the word "tolerated". He uses the word "institutionalized".

Once again, you are conflating "routine" with "legalized." The author indicates that he thinks routine torture is not morally permissible (actually that's going too far; he states that he will assume that), but he does not argue against it. The argument he makes is against legalizing torture in exceptional circumstances, which is a different kettle of fish.

This is not correct. He "assumes" it for the sake of the first proposition. He then makes clear that it is not in the second. Again, it's not simply legalization. It's "tolerated", "routine" (the author does in fact use the word "routine", institutionalized.

Also, even here, where the argument is against legalization, he is mostly just referring to other people's arguments. The only place he makes his own argument is on the torture warrant idea.

???

Does he refer to those arguments for fun? No, he refers to them because as he says they are compelling arguments. The work has been done for him.

So, you want to put all of the authors arguments into the bucket of "legal" when the author has gone to great pains to not simply use the word "legal". He also uses the words "tolerated", "routine", "institutionalized", "culture". All of these describe what the CIA did and in fact the CIA did call what they did "legal".

 

[sunmaster14]

There isn't enough information to say whether it worked or even happened, let alone like that. A policeman who is willing to beat up a suspect is perfectly capable of making up a story to justify his habit of beating up suspects.

For the record, I don't actually believe this incident happened. It is, nevertheless, plausible. The question is, "what would you do?"

 

[sunmaster14]

I honestly don't know what this means. Further, the author does not say "flawed". He makes clear that they are a threat.

It is natural and logical to legalize that which is morally permissible. The entire last section of the paper is dedicated to the proposition that it is not necessary to make our legal and moral systems coincide. That it is ok for some things which are morally permissible to be deemed illegal, even though that would strike many people as unjust. That was the relatively unique argument that the author was making. His two contributions are: (1) torture may be morally permissible in some instances; and (2) that which is morally permissible should still be kept illegal because it would be bad policy to try to make it legal.

You keep trying to hide behind the word "legalization". As I've noted time and again, the author goes to great lengths to take away that hiding place. He uses the word "routine". He uses the word "tolerated". He uses the word "institutionalized".

Routine <> legal/institutionalized. It simply isn't true in general, and it isn't true for the purposes of this paper. In fact, one of the legalization advocate arguments he attacks is the claim that keeping torture illegal will make it more routine because it will be kept in the shadows.

 

[jimbob]

I suppose we could find the cop and beat him until he lets us know whether he was lying

 

[jimbob]

We could start with the academic as we do know his name and beat him until he identifies the cop.

 

[Upchurch]

The Princeton essay made short work of that. The burden is really on you to show that there is ALWAYS an effective alternative to torture.

it did no such thing.

You are the one advocating an extraordinary, and illeagul, measures. The burden is on you to justify it. You've made no effort to do so.

 

[sunmaster14]

it did no such thing.

You are the one advocating an extraordinary, and illeagul, measures. The burden is on you to justify it. You've made no effort to do so.

Is offering a reward a good way of getting information out of an interrogation?