Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[sunmaster14]

What are the finger breakers doing wrong? As near as I can see by your reasoning they are perfectly justified.

Who said they were doing anything wrong? If they need RandFan's money in order to buy a dialysis machine that could save two children with failing kidneys, then perhaps they are morally justified. Especially if one of the children is destined to become a scientists who cures cancer, even if the other one is destined to become a ruthless dictator who starts an unjust war that kills millions of innocents, although really there is no way for the kidnappers to know that part.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oops.

Ah, I see you've already used that fallacy.

 

[marplots]

ETA: Just to give a concrete example, suppose KSM told interrogators that there was a plot to blow up the Brooklyn bridge. The CIA/FBI might decide to take no action because the cost of action exceeded the expected benefit (taking into account the probability the information was false). But perhaps a month later, there is an indication that there really is a threat against the Brooklyn bridge. Now that there is some corroboration, and the two pieces of information together might impel the CIA/FBI to take some action. At that later time, the option to act is considered to be "in-the-money," i.e. exercisable at expected net positive value.

Would you mind using a different bridge in your hypotheticals? I own that one.

 

[fishbob]

This isn't just an example of CAN. It's pretty much WILL in my book. At least for me, and just about everybody I know. In fact, I think you would have to be pretty demented not to give in and tell the kidnappers your PIN.

Not good enough. In any case, this is really just a one-off exercise. You get locked out after 3 erroneous inputs, so if you can hold off long enough to give them 3 bad PINs, then your bank account is safe. I'm not sure you would really have gotten your priorities straight, however.

I seriously doubt these are the kinds of questions the CIA asked - so just another in your heap of unrealistic hypotheticals.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, I acknowledge it, and no I don't ignore it. But I understand option theory, which says that something is always better than nothing. If you get information, you have the option to do nothing with it. To expend zero resources validating it or acting on it. The decision to act on information is completely separate from the decision to get the information. This doesn't address Upchurch's claim, however, that getting information using torture might preclude getting better information in other ways.

It's hard to imagine how you'd mix torture with, say, the more effective technique of rapport-building.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's hard to imagine how you'd mix torture with, say, the more effective technique of rapport-building.

"This hurts me more than it hurts you"...? Yeah, that's all I got.

 

[Upchurch]

"This hurts me more than it hurts you"...? Yeah, that's all I got.

"You know, I remember when a guy shoved my lunch up my ass once. I know how this feels. Now, open up..."

 

[sunmaster14]

It's hard to imagine how you'd mix torture with, say, the more effective technique of rapport-building.

Why can't you do a good cop, bad cop routine? The bad cop tortures, and the good cop builds rapport by acting as the guy who can stop the bad cop, but only if the suspect gives him something to work with.

Another aspect of this, of course, is that a credible threat of torture may be sufficient to induce cooperation even if the interrogators know that they are not allowed to torture. For example, suppose that a member of the interrogation team pretended to be a prisoner who was uncooperative. And then he was taken away for mock torture sessions which he then reported back to the target suspect. Would that be considered immoral in your view? Of course that option is undermined somewhat by public witch hunts against those accused of torture in the past, but perhaps a future President with a Machiavellian persona might restore our credibility in that regard. You know, somebody like Hillary Clinton.

 

[Upchurch]

Why can't you do a good cop, bad cop routine? The bad cop tortures, and the good cop builds rapport by acting as the guy who can stop the bad cop, but only if the suspect gives him something to work with.

Another aspect of this, of course, is that a credible threat of torture may be sufficient to induce cooperation even if the interrogators know that they are not allowed to torture. For example, suppose that a member of the interrogation team pretended to be a prisoner who was uncooperative. And then he was taken away for mock torture sessions which he then reported back to the target suspect. Would that be considered immoral in your view? Of course that option is undermined somewhat by public witch hunts against those accused of torture in the past, but perhaps a future President with a Machiavellian persona might restore our credibility in that regard. You know, somebody like Hillary Clinton.

Well, now you're no longer arguing for torture, are you? Finally acknowledging that you can't justify using the genuine thing?

 

[jimbob]

Well, now you're no longer arguing for torture, are you? Finally acknowledging that you can't justify using the genuine thing?

I *think* sunmaster is arguing for torture just without any reason why it would work better than no torture - except to confuse the person being questioned, and make anything they say more unreliable.

 

[Upchurch]

I *think* sunmaster is arguing for torture just without any reason why it would work better than no torture - except to confuse the person being questioned, and make anything they say more unreliable.

Well, if true, that would at least be consistent with sunmaster14's other arguments.

 

[jimbob]

I think the argument is "why not?"

 

[ehcks]

I think the argument is "why not?"

The sad part is that "Because it's horrifyingly evil and it doesn't [expletive] work" doesn't answer the question well enough for him.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, now you're no longer arguing for torture, are you? Finally acknowledging that you can't justify using the genuine thing?

I'm asking you whether you would think it immoral to set up an elaborate and credible threat of torture. I'm for not taking anything off the table and am always willing to look at each situation on a case by case basis.

Also, I'll note that you haven't responded to the ATM card scenario. Do you think torture (or the threat of torture) would work on you in that case? Do you think that rapport-building would work?

 

[jimbob]

The sad part is that "Because it's horrifyingly evil and it doesn't [expletive] work" doesn't answer the question well enough for him.

But if we devised a regime where it was only slightly counterproductive, and ignoring any moral arguments would you still object?

 

[sunmaster14]

I *think* sunmaster is arguing for torture just without any reason why it would work better than no torture - except to confuse the person being questioned, and make anything they say more unreliable.

I *think* you're being disingenuous here. It should be pretty obvious that I think torture works. It would work on me. If I didn't think it worked at least some of the time on some people, then I would have less qualms about strictly prohibiting it and punishing the people who engaged in it. But I really believe that the claim that torture is ineffective is a distinctly liberal form of woo.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm asking you whether you would think it immoral to set up an elaborate and credible threat of torture. I'm for not taking anything off the table and am always willing to look at each situation on a case by case basis.

Also, I'll note that you haven't responded to the ATM card scenario. Do you think torture (or the threat of torture) would work on you in that case? Do you think that rapport-building would work?

Tell you what. You justify the use of torture by showing that it is necessary, etc. then we'll talk about this off-topic stuff.

 

[sunmaster14]

But if we devised a regime where it was only slightly counterproductive, and ignoring any moral arguments would you still object?

I think none of you (i.e. the people who have posted today besides me) are arguing in good faith. I'll reengage when you guys decide to say something intelligent or interesting.

 

[jimbob]

I *think* you're being disingenuous here. It should be pretty obvious that I think torture works. It would work on me. If I didn't think it worked at least some of the time on some people, then I would have less qualms about strictly prohibiting it and punishing the people who engaged in it. But I really believe that the claim that torture is ineffective is a distinctly liberal form of woo.

Sunmaster, if someone was asking you what you knew about Al Quaeda membership, whilst torturing you, would you truthfully continue with your claim that you knew nothing, or would you eventually crack and make something up?


If you did know something, do you think you might give the torturer more than you actually knew - just to be seen to be being cooperative?

ETA: Remember there are many examples from history where this has happened - did you see the link about what happened to the NVA when they suspected infiltration?

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster, if someone was asking you what you knew about Al Quaeda membership, whilst torturing you, would you truthfully continue with your claim that you knew nothing, or would you eventually crack and make something up?


If you did know something, do you think you might give the torturer more than you actually knew - just to be seen to be being cooperative?

ETA: Remember there are many examples from history where this has happened - did you see the link about what happened to the NVA when they suspected infiltration?

If an interrogator was asking me leading questions, I would give him what I thought he wanted. A good interrogator would not ask leading questions though. He would ask objective questions, and he would represent that he had a good deal of knowledge, and that I didn't know what he knew and what he didn't. And that if I gave him an answer he knew to be false, I would be punished again or with greater intensity. I would then tell him everything I knew to be the truth, and I would refrain from telling him things that I knew to be false. I would also let him know when I thought something to be true but didn't have high confidence in it. In short, I would download everything I believed in, in the hope that he would see me as cooperative.

Your assumption is that all interrogators are bad, or even most of them. For a good interrogator, expanding the range of tools with which he can work, can only help. Once again, it's option theory at work. This does not mean of course that the CIA did good interrogations. I tend to believe that they did not actually.