Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Upchurch]

It would be a fallacy to claim that the reason people have left the forum is because they are wrong. Yes, I know that it was implied.

Not by me, I hope. I was genuinely confused as to why one side of an argument would rather abruptly drop out completely without any apparent reason like new information being released.

The record is in the thread, and I am completely satisfied with it.

Fascinating.

 

[3point14]

To further the point, should we be concerned about the treatment of our soldiers and civilians abroad? Is there any value to moral high ground and good faith? What's the point of having rules if we change them to suit our purposes?

None.


What's the point of any nation signing an international agreement with the USA from here on in?

 

[RandFan]

Not by me, I hope. I was genuinely confused as to why one side of an argument would rather abruptly drop out completely without any apparent reason like new information being released.

I wrote that poorly. I think what was going through my head was that "it could be inferred". Reading both your comments and mine I would have to say that such a claim is not warranted.

It was a fail all around.

 

[RandFan]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The only evidence for the efficacy of torture has been an appeal to a third party assertion (some in the CIA have said it worked).

If that is the case then I think we can safely dismiss the claim on the following grounds.

1. The appeal to authority is at best weak in that the assertion is self serving.
2. Beyond the desire to protect individuals or the agency from criticism or action (self serving) there is a compelling argument that the reason for torture is to subvert justice by compelling false testimony and justifying other crimes against humanity.
3. The assertion is controverted by other objective authoritative sources.

It is therefore simply an argument by assertion. A fallacy.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The only evidence for the efficacy of torture has been an appeal to a third party assertion (some in the CIA have said it worked).

If that is the case then I think we can safely dismiss the claim on the following grounds.

1. The appeal to authority is at best weak in that the assertion is self serving.
2. Beyond the desire to protect individuals or the agency from criticism or action (self serving) there is a compelling argument that the reason for torture is to subvert justice by compelling false testimony and justifying other crimes against humanity.
3. The assertion is controverted by other objective authoritative sources.

It is therefore simply an argument by assertion. A fallacy.

But you're forgetting, "Hurrr, it's my OPINION that torture works, and I'm entitled to my opinions."

 

[jimbob]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-diary-exposes-brutality-us-rendition-torture

Guantánamo Diary, the first book written by a still imprisoned detainee, is being published in 20 countries and has been serialised by the Guardian amid renewed calls by civil liberty campaigners for its author’s release.

The end product of the torture, he writes, was lies. Slahi made a number of false confessions in an attempt to end the torment, telling interrogators he planned to blow up the CN Tower in Toronto. Asked if he was telling the truth, he replied: “I don’t care as long as you are pleased. So if you want to buy, I am selling.”

Although one federal court has ordered his release on the grounds that the evidence against him is thin and tainted by torture, Slahi has been languishing in a form of legal limbo since December 2012 after the justice department entangled the case in an unresolved appeal. Several US officials have indicated that he is unlikely to be released this year. One, who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity as he had not been cleared to do so, said getting Slahi out of Guantánamo was not a priority. “Our focus is acutely on the individuals who have been approved for transfer,” he said. Slahi is not among them.

 

[jimbob]

I still don't get the people in this thread who are pro the Second Amendment, and in favour of torture.

In a related story




Idaho student receives official regrets and compensation for post-9/11 arrest

Abdullah al-Kidd, one of about 70 Muslim men allegedly detained under material witness statute after 2001 terror attacks, settles lawsuit against US government

In his lawsuit, al-Kidd contended that he was one of about 70 Muslim men rounded up under the material witness statute in the months after the 9/11 attacks. The law is intended to make sure that reluctant witnesses show up for trial, but al-Kidd said he fully cooperated with authorities and was never told he might need to testify in the federal government’s case against a fellow University of Idaho student.

The judge's statements in allowing the initial lawsuit in 2009 make interesting reading

A federal appeals court has ruled that former attorney general John Ashcroft may be held liable for people who were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks.

"Sadly, however, even now, more than 217 years after the ratification of the fourth amendment to the constitution, some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in sometimes primitive conditions, not because there is evidence that they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing, or to prevent them from having contact with others in the outside world," judge Milan D Smith Jr, for the majority. "We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history."

 

[jimbob]

My comment about the Second Amendment is that the goal was good and appropriate in the context of the technology of the time. The risk is still there, but in my view, the protection to freedom comes from other Amendments (especially the First and the Fourth to Eighth)

 

[sunmaster14]

I thought I would bump this thread because I think people's attitudes toward torture depend upon their proximity to a disgusting terrorist attack. The Paris attack is still raw, and I wonder if any of our moral absolutists have any creeping doubts about their moral absolutism.

If, for example, the alleged mastermind of the Paris attacks is captured, would enhanced interrogation techniques be justified? What do you think the French will do? Personally, I suspect the French will torture the **** out of him, but they'll do a much better job of denying it.

 

[wareyin]

I thought I would bump this thread because I think people's attitudes toward torture depend upon their proximity to a disgusting terrorist attack. The Paris attack is still raw, and I wonder if any of our moral absolutists have any creeping doubts about their moral absolutism.

If, for example, the alleged mastermind of the Paris attacks is captured, would enhanced interrogation techniques be justified? What do you think the French will do? Personally, I suspect the French will torture the **** out of him, but they'll do a much better job of denying it.

No.

 

[Border Reiver]

I thought I would bump this thread because I think people's attitudes toward torture depend upon their proximity to a disgusting terrorist attack. The Paris attack is still raw, and I wonder if any of our moral absolutists have any creeping doubts about their moral absolutism.

If, for example, the alleged mastermind of the Paris attacks is captured, would enhanced interrogation techniques be justified? What do you think the French will do? Personally, I suspect the French will torture the **** out of him, but they'll do a much better job of denying it.

If the alleged mastermind of the Paris attack is captured what benefit do we get out of torture/enhanced interrogation? We've already gone over the need to use addiitonal sources to verify the information gained in such interrogations, so getting information that may or may not be accurate faster isn't a great benefit. All we do is let ISIS know that we are so afraid of them that we're ready to throw our beliefs on the fire.

 

[sunmaster14]

If the alleged mastermind of the Paris attack is captured what benefit do we get out of torture/enhanced interrogation? We've already gone over the need to use addiitonal sources to verify the information gained in such interrogations, so getting information that may or may not be accurate faster isn't a great benefit. All we do is let ISIS know that we are so afraid of them that we're ready to throw our beliefs on the fire.

The idea that the information needs to be verified is a total red herring, and it has been addressed over and over. Verifying information can be 1,000 times easier than getting the information in the first place. The simplest example is getting a password to decrypt an encrypted file. Checking the password might take all of five seconds.

As for letting ISIS know that we are afraid of them, well, first of all, who cares? Second of all, they already know. Third of all, the French certainly aren't going to tell anybody that they're torturing ISIS members they've captured, so how would ISIS even know?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If, for example, the alleged mastermind of the Paris attacks is captured, would enhanced interrogation techniques be justified?

Nope.

Also, I don't think you mean "justified" there. Given your stated reason for even asking the question, it seems the word you're looking for is "satisfying".

 

[Tony Stark]

I think that if the French torture anybody, those responsible will be war criminals that belong in prison. Just the same as Dick Cheney.

 

[sunmaster14]

Nope.

Also, I don't think you mean "justified" there. Given your stated reason for even asking the question, it seems the word you're looking for is "satisfying".

I understand your point, but I really do mean to use the word "justified." It is not just a question of desiring revenge. It's a question of believing the people responsible for such a crime are on a lower moral plane than normal human beings. It's also a question of fear of another attack and the belief that drastic measures are required to prevent one. Both of these factors fade with time (assuming the time is free of further attacks).

 

[catsmate]

No.

This.

If the alleged mastermind of the Paris attack is captured what benefit do we get out of torture/enhanced interrogation? We've already gone over the need to use addiitonal sources to verify the information gained in such interrogations, so getting information that may or may not be accurate faster isn't a great benefit. All we do is let ISIS know that we are so afraid of them that we're ready to throw our beliefs on the fire.

And this.

The idea that the information needs to be verified is a total red herring, and it has been addressed over and over.

No, actually it hasn't been. It's been handwaved away, ignored and dodged by torture advocates many times, but never actually addressed.

Exactly, it's meant as a "gotcha" question. Best ignored.

Correct, on both points.

 

[wareyin]

I understand your point, but I really do mean to use the word "justified." It is not just a question of desiring revenge. It's a question of believing the people responsible for such a crime are on a lower moral plane than normal human beings. It's also a question of fear of another attack and the belief that drastic measures are required to prevent one. Both of these factors fade with time (assuming the time is free of further attacks).

Because you believe that those responsible for such a crime are on a lower moral plane, you would also lower your own moral plane to match them? Or you are on a similarly lower moral plane already?

 

[3point14]

Not speaking for anyone else but the reason I don't support torture is not simply because I haven't come across anything abhorrent enough to warrant it yet. To assume that any new atrocities may change my position is to completely fail to understand my position in the first place.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

No, actually it hasn't been. It's been handwaved away, ignored and dodged by torture advocates many times, but never actually addressed.

I addressed it in the very post you're responding to. How long does it take to check whether a password is correct? Or a safety deposit box in a bank has the contents claimed? Or that somebody else you're looking for is holed up in a particular apartment in Brussels?

 

[sunmaster14]

Because you believe that those responsible for such a crime are on a lower moral plane, you would also lower your own moral plane to match them? Or you are on a similarly lower moral plane already?

Do you object to medical testing of animals? Do you object to the industrial slaughter of animals for food? If not, do you think it's because you consider animals to be on a lower moral plane than humans, and does that not mean that it is moral to treat them differently than you would treat humans?