Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Cleon]

It's interesting to see such an explicit appeal to emotion on this board. I would think most people would want to argue like Spock rather than like Kirk.

I stand by what I said upthread:

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.

Even Upchurch wants to be Kirk, as he has brought up the Kobayashi Maru test, and Kirk's implausible and dishonest approach, as a way out of the logical traps I set for him.

I was always more of a Doctor Who fan anyway.

 

[Upchurch]

So Upchurch's claim becomes that torture never works on anybody ever.

I could be mistaken because of the length of this thread, but I don't recall Upchurch claiming that torture never works on anybody ever. If that's the case, then sure, one example would disprove the claim, as you have done.

He has claimed repeatedly and consistently that there is always a more effective and moral method of extracting the same information.

The intellectual dishonesty shown here is amazing. Do you not see that saying that there is "always a more effective method" is not even vaguely similar to say that "torture never works on anybody ever"?

I have never said that torture cannot be used to get good intelligence from someone. My point is that the signal-to-noise ratio is necessarily very low and, therefore, makes torture the far less useful choice for speedy interrogations. And as speedy interrogations are apologists' only argument for the use of torture, there really is no need for torture as an interrogation method.

It is something of an article of faith with him.

Well, faith in the science, logic, history, and game theory, maybe.

What have you got to support your apologetics? Assumptions, gut feelings, and contrived hypothetical situations that aren't really applicable to what the CIA was doing?

Who is relying on faith here?

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I was always more of a Doctor Who fan anyway.

Well, we agree on that at least.

 

[sunmaster14]

The intellectual dishonesty shown here is amazing. Do you not see that saying that there is "always a more effective method" is not even vaguely similar to say that "torture never works on anybody ever"?

No, I don't see that. I see that your beliefs are logically equivalent to "torture never works on anybody ever." Please don't excerpt my claim to make it seem like I was distorting your view rather than showing what it was logically equivalent to. Your editing is an example of intellectual dishonesty, not my logical inference. For reference, here is what I wrote:

Second, torture does not have to work on 100% of people 100% of the time in order for it to be an effective option. It only has to work on some of the people some of the time. So Upchurch's claim becomes that torture never works on anybody ever.

I am saying that your claim that "there is always a better method" is logically equivalent to saying "torture never works on anybody ever" because it is possible to come up with situations (particularly time urgent ones) where other options fail. I concede, however, that if we ever find a mind-reader, then that can be used to trump torture every time.

I have never said that torture cannot be used to get good intelligence from someone. My point is that the signal-to-noise ratio is necessarily very low and, therefore, makes torture the far less useful choice for speedy interrogations. And as speedy interrogations are apologists' only argument for the use of torture, there really is no need for torture as an interrogation method.

I have given an example of a situation in which the information can be validated immediately. In such cases, how can rapport-building be speedier than threatening a suspect with thumbscrews unless the suspect will always lie when having his thumbs screwed?

 

[Upchurch]

No, I don't see that. I see that your beliefs are logically equivalent to "torture never works on anybody ever."

This is so wrong I really don't know how to respond to it, especially since it is directly contradictory to things I've actually said. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is.

I am saying that your claim that "there is always a better method" is logically equivalent to saying "torture never works on anybody ever" because it is possible to come up with situations (particularly time urgent ones) where other options fail.

And why are you once again assuming that torture would succeed when other options fail?

I have given an example of a situation in which the information can be validated immediately. In such cases, how can rapport-building be speedier than threatening a suspect with thumbscrews unless the suspect will always lie when having his thumbs screwed?

Actually, the speedier method for obtaining a four digit pin number is through a brute force attack. There are only 10,000 possible combinations and if you have enough access to a particular ATM to try multiple combinations without security shutting it down after a few failed attempts, you might as well just hack it.

Or for that matter, why not steal the whole ATM and get all the cash available, not just the limit that an ATM can provide for a single account, which is something like a couple hundred dollars?

Again, in order to justify the use of torture, you have to create a scenario where a cartoon villain has access to incredible resources to accomplish tiny goals.

 

[3point14]

These are category errors. My Mr. Spock quote trumps yours: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Have you heard of the tyranny of the majority?

 

[sunmaster14]

This is so wrong I really don't know how to respond to it, especially since it is directly contradictory to things I've actually said. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is.

I agree with this proposition.

And why are you once again assuming that torture would succeed when other options fail?

How about if you propose some other options, and let's compare.

Actually, the speedier method for obtaining a four digit pin number is through a brute force attack. There are only 10,000 possible combinations and if you have enough access to a particular ATM to try multiple combinations without security shutting it down after a few failed attempts, you might as well just hack it.

In my scenario, I assumed that you get locked out after 3 failed attempts. Not sure if it actually works that way for most bank ATMs. I know it works that way for my online accounts at several brokers.

Or for that matter, why not steal the whole ATM and get all the cash available, not just the limit that an ATM can provide for a single account, which is something like a couple hundred dollars?

Well, it's really heavy, and there might be all kinds of alarms and other security measures.

Again, in order to justify the use of torture, you have to create a scenario where a cartoon villain has access to incredible resources to accomplish tiny goals.

Why does it take any resources to kidnap you while wearing masks? All they have to do is point a gun at you and put you in a car. Getting a gun and a car is easy. I suppose getting a pair of handcuffs could be more involved, but I bet some S&M themed sex shops have that kind of stuff.

 

[Upchurch]

Rapport-building is just soft torture, you know, holding people against their will, holding them without charges, indefinitely. Oh my.

You don't know what "rapport-building" means, do you?

 

[sunmaster14]

Have you heard of the tyranny of the majority?

Yes, I have. I recognize the importance of protecting the rights of the minority. I am not really a utilitarian in the Jeremy Bentham sense. My theory has always been that even deontologists are just utilitarians with long horizons.

In any case, my point was to draw a distinction between the examples that Cleon's quote gave. Torture properly involves hurting one person to save many (and a presumably guilty person at that, who always has the option of being cooperative and minimizing the hurt, or avoiding it altogether).

Slavery and genocide involve hurting the many for the benefit of the few, and with no "outs" whatsoever for those being hurt. As I said, it is a category error. In addition, it is simply an appeal to emotion as slavery and genocide have extremely negative connotations in today's society, and they hardly involve moral questions with which serious thinkers wrestle today.

 

[3point14]

Yes, I have. I recognize the importance of protecting the rights of the minority. I am not really a utilitarian in the Jeremy Bentham sense. My theory has always been that even deontologists are just utilitarians with long horizons.

In any case, my point was to draw a distinction between the examples that Cleon's quote gave. Torture properly involves hurting one person to save many (and a presumably guilty person at that, who always has the option of being cooperative and minimizing the hurt, or avoiding it altogether).

I don't really find Star Trek a fountain of moral goodness but you've invoked it so I'll run with it.

Do you think it would have been the same movie if Kirk had thrown Spock into the radiation filled room as Spock, kicking and screaming, said he didn't want to go? Do you think then that Spock would have listened as Kirk explained about the needs of the many.

In short, Spock volunteered.



The Tyranny of the majority would be the crew of the Enterprise throwing spock into the deadly room and telling him to get on with it. Wouldn't be so heroic, I think.

You would have a point, in your Trek related excursion, if those tortured volunteered for it. They didn't.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't really find Star Trek a fountain of moral goodness but you've invoked it so I'll run with it.

Do you think it would have been the same movie if Kirk had thrown Spock into the radiation filled room as Spock, kicking and screaming, said he didn't want to go? Do you think then that Spock would have listened as Kirk explained about the needs of the many.

In short, Spock volunteered.



The Tyranny of the majority would be the crew of the Enterprise throwing spock into the deadly room and telling him to get on with it. Wouldn't be so heroic, I think.

You would have a point, in your Trek related excursion, if those tortured volunteered for it. They didn't.

In that respect, a more appropriate comparison would be the suicide terrorist, right? Voluntarily sacrificing themselves to benefit the larger group.

Gotta love the defense of torture that works just as well for suicide bombers.

 

[3point14]

In that respect, a more appropriate comparison would be the suicide terrorist, right? Voluntarily sacrificing themselves to benefit the larger group.

Gotta love the defense of torture that works just as well for suicide bombers.

I haven't read one that doesn't.


'The ends justify the means'

'It's war!'

'It might work and we're desperate'

'YOU DON'T KNOW MAN, YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!'


All of these are justifications for flying planes into buildings full of people.

The telling thing is that, when it's 'their' side doing it, the rules become all mutable. When it's the other side doing it then all of a sudden there's a 'line in the sand' and, oddly, no equivocation at all.

It's rank hypocrisy.

I suspect excellent odds of some poor dutiful grunt somewhere getting his nuts electrocuted and his toenails ripped off because the government of the USA has now given tacit acceptance of torture by anyone to anyone because, if one looks hard enough, one can always find a justification.

 

[Upchurch]

How about if you propose some other options, and let's compare.

Noting that I'm not a professional at this:

"Look, I've got nothing against you, personally. I just need a little extra cash for my daughter's medicine. Give me your PIN and we'll go our separate ways. The ATM maxes out at around $300 per account per day and you won't even lose that. It'll be paid by your bank's insurance. My little girl gets her medicine, you get a new PIN, a story to tell your grandchildren, and no harm done."​

Establish sympathy: a sick child. Minimize the consequences: costs person nothing. Appeal to something the person wants: family, no harm.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Noting that I'm not a professional at this...

Would you tell us if you were?

 

[tsig]

Would you tell us if you were?

If he told you he'd have to waterboard you.

 

[Upchurch]

Would you tell us if you were?

You'd have to make me.

 

[marplots]

(snipped a bunch)

And why are you once again assuming that torture would succeed when other options fail?

So long as torture is an option, it may eventually be used.

"Did he talk yet?"
"Not yet."
"Did you tell him we'll be informing the Saudis so they can 'visit' his family?"
"Yep. Didn't work."
"How's that rapport thing working out?"
"Nothing so far."
"What's left on the options list?"
"Well, we could offer him a few hundred thousand dollars and a release to the country of his choice... or, you know, the 't' word."
"Yeah, well, let's try that second thing before we try the money thing."

Sooner or later, unless you have a 100% effective method, you filter down to whatever is left on the interrogation menu. Even if the "whatever is left" is a pretty shoddy option.

 

[Border Reiver]

You'd have to make me.

Coffee with cream and sugar, right?

So, we've come into some evidence that looks bad for you. I mean a judge and jury could see it either way, and but then there's all the stuff we've found on the web - I'll be honest, it's not looking so good for you.

But I like you, and I think that you're a smart guy, so let me pay you the complement of being blunt. You have information we're looking for. Give it up, and if it checks out, then the judge hears that you gotmixed up in something way over your head, and helped us out, plus that stuff about, well you know what I'm talking about, doesn't get seen by the court. What do you say? I am going to let you know that we've got your partner ------ a couple of doors down, and maybe he'll be more cooperative...

Did you want to say anything?

 

[marplots]

Coffee with cream and sugar, right?

So, we've come into some evidence that looks bad for you. I mean a judge and jury could see it either way, and but then there's all the stuff we've found on the web - I'll be honest, it's not looking so good for you.

But I like you, and I think that you're a smart guy, so let me pay you the complement of being blunt. You have information we're looking for. Give it up, and if it checks out, then the judge hears that you gotmixed up in something way over your head, and helped us out, plus that stuff about, well you know what I'm talking about, doesn't get seen by the court. What do you say? I am going to let you know that we've got your partner ------ a couple of doors down, and maybe he'll be more cooperative...

Did you want to say anything?

"Talk to my lawyer."

ETA: "Feel free to torture him too."

 

[Upchurch]

Sooner or later, unless you have a 100% effective method, you filter down to whatever is left on the interrogation menu. Even if the "whatever is left" is a pretty shoddy option.

It's amazing that people are cool with using torture as many times as possible until it works, but anything else is framed as "if it doesn't work the first time, try something else entirely".

Why would you need to resort to torture?