Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[sunmaster14]

Update your map files, FFS.

You mean these maps of Spain from 1492 aren't the most recent ones?

 

[jimbob]

Really, my main argument is that the level of moral (p)outrage over torturing a handful of terrorists is over the top. And inconsistent with other moral outrages which have transpired in the past and which continue to this day. I think much of the outrage is driven by partisan concerns.

Don't forget the ones that weren't terrorists, though I recall that you magically downgraded their torture to "mistreatment." Because you're all about critical thinking.



Of course you do. The concept that some of us are outraged (sorry, (p) outraged ) because our government has committed crimes that we normally attribute to evil regimes and individuals is completely lost on you.

And I'm sure that your willingness to overlook/excuse torture has nothing to do with partisan concerns whatsoever.

Indeed.

Given the debasing nature of torture, given that it strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights, given that it has been shown ineffective, given that even if we grant extreme scenarios that are so unlikely that we have no real world examples but must rely on hypothetical for some rationalization for torture, then the best strategy is to inveigh against torture.

Remember when Conservatives used to complain about "Big Government" and explained that the Constitution was about limiting government, not the rights of people?

My, how things change.

I did ask about the second amendment upthread. For that reason. If the agencies of law can disregard the law why should anyone think they'll limit it to that?

You know, I've let you slide on this among all the other back and forth, but what is it about torturing foreign, unlawful combatants on foreign soil that strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights? Constitutional rights only apply to permanent US residents, US citizens, and people inside the US. Exactly how does such torture strike at our constitutional rights in a way, for example, that Obama's killing of a US citizen by drone missile does not.

Either they are criminals and should be subjected to the justice system or they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.

 

[Crossbow]

What are you talking about? I have been familiar with the anti-torture treaty for the entire time it has been in existence. You simply misunderstood the point I was making, which is that torture is defined as severe pain, and that therefore there are no international treaties which govern the infliction of less than severe pain or lengthy interrogations on unlawful combatants.

I am talking about your ignorance or your lies.

I do know if you are ignorant or a liar, but you are geat error one way or the other.

From the Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Just in case your fine eye for detail missed it, this article says (which the USA is a signatory to) that it applies to "persons".

You keep bringing up that nonsense about "unlawful combatants", but this article applies to all persons regardless of what a nation may define as their legal status.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I find it more than distressing that the purveyor of 'Freedom(tm)' around the world cannot bring itself to follow the international agreements it has made...

Freedom from international agreements. Freedom from ethical constraints. It's not so much that we're spreading freedom to others as we are exercising our own.

I think that if Obama isn't going to prosecute Cheney, ect. he should at least pardon them...

I can't imagine why Obama would sacrifice what's left of the U.S.'s credibility for the likes of Cheney and others.

If he doesn't care why is trying so hard to justify his actions?

It doesn't appear to me that he's trying very hard. It looks like it comes quite natural to him. He may be just that "good" of a politician, or he may actually be completely immersed in the delusion.

 

[jimbob]

As usual, people love to jump to conclusions without knowing anything about the topic. The discussion that Crossbow referenced begins roughly here.

I have consistently believed that the most severe interrogation techniques employed by the CIA do amount to torture and are covered by the Torture Convention.

I don't know why people can't do even a little bit of review of the discussion before weighing in. Well, actually I do know, but it isn't a shining example of critical thinking.

Possibly because you are defending the indefensible?

 

[Upchurch]

Possibly because you are defending the indefensible?

Not merely is it indefensible on many levels, the science doesn't support it.

 

[Cleon]

Not merely is it indefensible on many levels, the science doesn't support it.

You know what? I don't care.

Maybe I'm a bad skeptic, or not sufficiently critically thinking, or whatever. But I just don't care what the science has to say about it. Not one whit.

If the science said that we could cure cancer by shoving live babies into a sausage grinder, I'd be against that too.

Because sometimes it's not about the science, it's about humanity.

 

[Upchurch]

Can't we just agree that torture doesn't work on multiple levels?

 

[sunmaster14]

I am talking about your ignorance or your lies.

I do know if you are ignorant or a liar, but you are geat error one way or the other.

The Torture Convention defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering. It's right there in the first sentence of your excerpt. It does not cover intentional infliction of pain and suffering which falls short of severe. The Geneva Conventions do, but only for lawful combatants and noncombatant civilians detained in a war zone. The distinction arose in a discussion I had with 3point14 about the use of pain compliance or lengthy interrogations in policing and the like. Does that clear it up? I won't hold my breath waiting for either a concession or an apology from you.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not merely is it indefensible on many levels, the science doesn't support it.

That "research" is not scientific in the least. The article even admits that there are no controls and that there could be selection bias in the reported recollections. I would put more stock in the lone comment to the article by the former interrogator to the effect that the threat of employing coercive strategies has a lot to do with the success of sympathetic strategies.

In any case, I'm still interested in whether you believe that offering rewards to a detainee (e.g. a bar of chocolate, a hot shower, a phone call to a relative) in exchange for truthful information would be an effective interrogation technique.

 

[ehcks]

You know what? I don't care.

Maybe I'm a bad skeptic, or not sufficiently critically thinking, or whatever. But I just don't care what the science has to say about it. Not one whit.

If the science said that we could cure cancer by shoving live babies into a sausage grinder, I'd be against that too.

Because sometimes it's not about the science, it's about humanity.

Torture is both abhorrently evil and statistically ineffective and yet we still have people defending its use.

I think that maybe it's the bolded that some people just don't have.

 

[jimbob]

The Torture Convention defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering. It's right there in the first sentence of your excerpt. It does not cover intentional infliction of pain and suffering which falls short of severe. The Geneva Conventions do, but only for lawful combatants and noncombatant civilians detained in a war zone. The distinction arose in a discussion I had with 3point14 about the use of pain compliance or lengthy interrogations in policing and the like. Does that clear it up? I won't hold my breath waiting for either a concession or an apology from you.

People were killed by the torturers. That was severe. You yourself admitted it was torture.

A lot of this strikes me as similar to the logic-chopping behind fighting bishops using maces rather than swords as they were forbidden to shed blood - several sources suggest that was why the rack was used by some inquisitions.

 

[Upchurch]

In any case, I'm still interested in whether you believe that offering rewards to a detainee (e.g. a bar of chocolate, a hot shower, a phone call to a relative) in exchange for truthful information would be an effective interrogation technique.

Justify the foundational assumption of your claim, then maybe we can discuss it.

 

[sunmaster14]

People were killed by the torturers. That was severe. You yourself admitted it was torture.

A lot of this strikes me as similar to the logic-chopping behind fighting bishops using maces rather than swords as they were forbidden to shed blood - several sources suggest that was why the rack was used by some inquisitions.

These points are not relevant to the discussion I'm referencing, which happened a week ago. I put up a link recently. I was talking about the level of physical force that the police use routinely to interrogate suspects and get them to cooperate. That kind of force is not covered by the Torture Convention for the simple reason that it doesn't rise, usually, to the level of torture. However, even that lower level of force is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions for people covered by those conventions (which does not include unlawful combatants).

 

[sunmaster14]

Justify the foundational assumption of your claim, then maybe we can discuss it.

Well, you keep saying that there are moral interrogation techniques which are more effective than torture. I'd like you to give me an example of one. What do you do if a suspect simply tells you that he won't talk and wants to be left alone and persists in that behavior for a few days?

 

[Upchurch]

Well, you keep saying that there are moral interrogation techniques which are more effective than torture. I'd like you to give me an example of one. What do you do if a suspect simply tells you that he won't talk and wants to be left alone and persists in that behavior for a few days?

I did above (here is more of the science), but that doesn't matter because what we are discussing is justification for the use of torture. Your ticking time bomb scenario is based on the assumption that torture obtains both good information and that it produces it quickly.

This is a rather extreme claim. I think you should either support or withdraw it. Shifting the burden to me is just intellectual dishonesty.

 

[sunmaster14]

I did above (here is more of the science), but that doesn't matter because what we are discussing is justification for the use of torture. Your ticking time bomb scenario is based on the assumption that torture obtains both good information and that it produces it quickly.

Oh, so you're referring to the previous paper about rapport building? But what exactly is rapport building? How is it done? And what do you do with a tough nut like KSM who simply refuses even to talk to you?

We've discussed the other paper before. It's written in a tendentious way, and it really doesn't have anything interesting to say. It's obvious that stress and repeated recall can cause long-term memories to deteriorate. But the information interrogators are after is often far more robust than, say, your home address from two moves ago. You're unlikely to forget the location of the warehouse where you stored the bombs for the next attack. Or the name of an associate with whom you've been planning attacks for the last five years.

 

[Upchurch]

{snip}

You're evading again. It's almost like you know you can't actually support your position, so you want to talk about anything else.



aside: BPS response to US torture report

...and furthermore to note the extensive psychological research concluding that torture and coercive interrogation is ineffective, especially in comparison to rapport-based approaches

 

[Upchurch]

Scientific American: Bad Science and “Folk Psychology” Guided CIA Torture Techniques

But one thing is clear—the CIA’s methods were never justified based on science. The techniques described in the report fly in the face of what numerous scientific studies have shown about the effectiveness of procuring information from detainees and the indistinct border between aggressive interrogation and outright torture.

How Torture May Inhibit Accurate Confessions
Did The US Government Misuse Science To Justify Torture
Did CIA Doctors Perform Torture Research on Detainees?
Does Waterboarding Have Long-Term Physical Effects?

 

[jimbob]

Yes Upchurch, but assume for the sake of argument that it was both effective and moral then what would be wrong with it?