Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

So if you suspect someone of being a member of Al Quaeda, and you are torturing them - how do you ask a question that isn't leading?
 
jimbob said:
So if you suspect someone of being a member of Al Quaeda, and you are torturing them - how do you ask a question that isn't leading?
Click to expand...

Well, as I said before, it's not a good idea for confessions, since if there is no way to validate a confession, then the information you're asking for cannot be validated, and if there is a way to validate a confession, there's no point in getting a confession.

A better interrogation would involve putting the pictures of 100 people in front of him, some of whom are known to be al Qaeda, some of whom are suspected to be al Qaeda, and some of whom are known not to be al Qaeda. Then you tell the subject that he will be mildly tortured unless he points out an al Qaeda person from those pictures. If he claims he doesn't know anybody who is al Qaeda, then he is mildly tortured and then given another chance. Repeat until you believe his story that he knows nobody. If he points out an innocent person as al Qaeda, then you give him more intense torture as punishment for lying. If he points out a known al Qaeda person, take that as evidence that he has relevant knowledge, and repeat. If he points out an unknown person as al Qaeda, then take that under advisement. There's no question that information can be extracted this way. Even evidence that the subject is innocent or, more accurately, that he has no relevant knowledge. If he is willing to endure mild torture because he doesn't want to take the risk of being found out to be a liar, then that is good evidence that he has nothing to give.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Torture wouldn't work on me, especially in the ATM scenario. My thought is that someone willing to torture me to get my ATM pin is very likely to kill me after getting it. So, since they'll likely kill me either way, they may as well not profit from it.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Here's what I think is a plausible scenario to demonstrate the efficacy of torture in general:

You're kidnapped by a masked gang of criminals and blindfolded and handcuffed. Your bank ATM card has been taken from you. They take you to and hold you at a location unknown to you. Your captors demand that you give them your PIN (i.e. personal identification number), so that one of their accomplices, who is at an ATM with your card can take money out of your checking account.

They ask you for the PIN, and initially you refuse to give it to them because they could potentially withdraw thousands of dollars from your account, and you can't afford to lose that kind of money. They threaten to break your fingers one at a time until you give them the correct PIN. As soon as you do, they promise to take you to a hospital and dump you off there and leave you and your family alone forever. Every time you give them the wrong PIN, they will do something even worse to you than break a finger, although that remains unspecified.

What do you do? If you give them the PIN, would you concede that torture worked? Why not?
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, here the masked gang of criminals who will break your fingers and possibly kill you afterwards are analogous to the CIA. Right, gotcha.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Faith is all that you are arguing. The science is against you. Logic is against you. History is against you.

And you still refuse to address the fundamental flaw in your argument.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Well, as I said before, it's not a good idea for confessions, since if there is no way to validate a confession, then the information you're asking for cannot be validated, and if there is a way to validate a confession, there's no point in getting a confession.

A better interrogation would involve putting the pictures of 100 people in front of him, some of whom are known to be al Qaeda, some of whom are suspected to be al Qaeda, and some of whom are known not to be al Qaeda. Then you tell the subject that he will be mildly tortured unless he points out an al Qaeda person from those pictures. If he claims he doesn't know anybody who is al Qaeda, then he is mildly tortured and then given another chance. Repeat until you believe his story that he knows nobody. If he points out an innocent person as al Qaeda, then you give him more intense torture as punishment for lying. If he points out a known al Qaeda person, take that as evidence that he has relevant knowledge, and repeat. If he points out an unknown person as al Qaeda, then take that under advisement. There's no question that information can be extracted this way. Even evidence that the subject is innocent or, more accurately, that he has no relevant knowledge. If he is willing to endure mild torture because he doesn't want to take the risk of being found out to be a liar, then that is good evidence that he has nothing to give.
Click to expand...

So stupid. So immoral. So easy to game the process.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, as I said before, it's not a good idea for confessions, since if there is no way to validate a confession, then the information you're asking for cannot be validated, and if there is a way to validate a confession, there's no point in getting a confession.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't there be any way to validate a confession? It's like any other bit of info you'd extract, whether by torture or not. Vetting would be a part of any intelligence gathering method.
 
marplots said:
Why wouldn't there be any way to validate a confession? It's like any other bit of info you'd extract, whether by torture or not. Vetting would be a part of any intelligence gathering method.
Click to expand...

He had to make a distinction between a confession and information so that he wouldn't have to acknowledge that if torture is effective then there must be witches.
 
I find the torture of another human reprehensible.
I got to thinking what if we had a prefect "truth serum."
Does administering drugs to 'loosen' up the tongue of a suspect violate/alter the mental integrity of an individual = torture?
Would I be okay with the use of MDMA/ecstacy or other empathogenic drugs?
Would I be okay with other countries using "relatively harmless" drugs on American detainees to get info?

For me, a few glasses of wine, an attractive sympathetic young woman and the promise of physical intimacy would get much more truthful, accurate info than if you threatened to start snapping fingers.

interesting read on truth serums and torture
apparently threatening to use 'serum' is torture, but using it may not be.
 
marplots said:
Why wouldn't there be any way to validate a confession? It's like any other bit of info you'd extract, whether by torture or not. Vetting would be a part of any intelligence gathering method.
Click to expand...

Well, if part of the confession involves corroborating information which can be validated, then you're right. I was thinking more of "are you a bad guy?" "Yes, I'm a bad guy." That's not terribly helpful information by itself.
 
Upchurch said:
Faith is all that you are arguing. The science is against you. Logic is against you. History is against you.

And you still refuse to address the fundamental flaw in your argument.
Click to expand...

I have addressed all of your points. You're the one that consistently refuses to respond to mine, since you know that your position will be ripped to shreds if you do.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I have addressed all of your points.
Click to expand...

Have you? Oh then, please, show me were you've demonstrated that torture is at all effective at obtaining reliable information quickly, which is a requirement for being a solution to the ticking-time-bomb scenario.

Because, I gotta tell you, all I have seen you do is pretty much anything but that.
 
The CIA wasn't dealing with a ticking bomb scenario.
 
jimbob said:
The CIA wasn't dealing with a ticking bomb scenario.
Click to expand...

No, they really weren't, but the only way apologists can think to justify it is to have a dire situation where time is of the essence. Of course, that assumes that torture provides reliable information quickly.

All evidence to date shows this to be extremely unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom