Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Garrette]

I am usually very careful in what I write here. My interlocutors tend to fight strawmen, though, so I can see how somebody not following closely can get the wrong impression.

I will suggest one final thing: that you recognize that the scenario you are defending has not come up. My hypothetical was extreme and included absolute knowledge with a falsely restricted list of options. If that is your scenario, fine, but you should recognize that few, if any, here are arguing against it, I think. And if that is the only scenario you are defending then this is purely an academic exercise inapplicable to anything that has happened in relation to the Senate Report or anything that is likely to happen.

 

[jimbob]

It's a risk. And there is also the risk of wasting valuable time interrogating a suspect with ineffective methods. If a suspect is determined not to tell you anything useful, then not much is lost either way.

Just self respect and dignity.

And the longer term point about what you are fighting for.

"We must become a tyranny with and destroy the rule of law and natural justice in order to preserve our freedom and the rule of law and natural justice"

There is little ground for saying that there are short-term gains, but even if you accept that there might be marginal gains on occasion, the long-term cost would be untenable.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps we should ask college administrators to do the torturing then, since they don't have any to begin with.

Or Republicans.

 

[sunmaster14]

And the longer term point about what you are fighting for.

"We must become a tyranny with and destroy the rule of law and natural justice in order to preserve our freedom and the rule of law and natural justice"

There is little ground for saying that there are short-term gains, but even if you accept that there might be marginal gains on occasion, the long-term cost would be untenable.

Are you against the French imposing a state of emergency on the country? That's a lot more drastic and damaging than waterboarding a couple of terrorists don't you think?

 

[Border Reiver]

I have absolutely no idea what you're driving at here.

Essentially, if you engage in torture that you have abandoned any pretence of being a society that values the rule of law.

The US supposedly values the rule of law. The hypocrisy of torturing people, while claiming to defend people from another group that tortures people would severely damage the US.

 

[jimbob]

Are you against the French imposing a state of emergency on the country? That's a lot more drastic and damaging than waterboarding a couple of terrorists don't you think?

No it isn't more drastic than almost or actually drowning someone who might be innocent - authorities make mistakes.

The executive arm of government is right to declare a state of emergency when there is an emergency.

 

[sunmaster14]

No it isn't more drastic than almost or actually drowning someone who might be innocent - authorities make mistakes.

The executive arm of government is right to declare a state of emergency when there is an emergency.

Well, state of emergency is a euphemism for suspending the civil rights of 60 million people. I submit that that is a far more drastic action than pouring some water on a terrorist's face (to use similarly euphemistic language).

 

[Garrette]

No it isn't more drastic than almost or actually drowning someone who might be innocent - authorities make mistakes.

The executive arm of government is right to declare a state of emergency when there is an emergency.

Not to mention that the state of emergency does not allow for torture; it allows for looser standards in regard to the violation of other rights, primarily privacy. Standards for search are loosened, for instance. This is not remotely the same as institutionalized torture.

 

[jimbob]

Well, state of emergency is a euphemism for suspending the civil rights of 60 million people. I submit that that is a far more drastic action than pouring some water on a terrorist's face (to use similarly euphemistic language).

really?

Not to mention that the state of emergency does not allow for torture; it allows for looser standards in regard to the violation of other rights, primarily privacy. Standards for search are loosened, for instance. This is not remotely the same as institutionalized torture.

Indeed. It is also for a limited time.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Because you always make the most rational decisions when overcome with emotion.

Is this really all that you have left? Trying to scare people into agreeing with you once any attempt at rational argument has failed?

 

[thaiboxerken]

A conservative arguing FOR moral relativism, but only when it comes to torture. Interesting.

 

[quadraginta]

Well, state of emergency is a euphemism for suspending the civil rights of 60 million people. I submit that that is a far more drastic action than pouring some water on a terrorist's face (to use similarly euphemistic language).

It's a lot more than just a euphemism.

(a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.)
​

It means what it says,

 

[fishbob]

And some people simply don't have any useful information. It's all a question of probabilities.

YOU might have some useful information. How probable is probable enough in your world?
Inquiring minds may want to know - and may be a little rough finding out.

 

[fishbob]

No, I suspect there is little ground between us. I do not advocate the routine use of torture at all. If you go through this thread, as well as the Condoleezza Rice one (weirdly enough), you'll see that my argument is based on two ideas: continuity and proportionality. The first idea is that there is no bright line dividing torture from non-torture, at least on a moral scale. Mistreatment lies on a continuum. Thus, detaining a person, interrogating them for hours, yelling at them, giving them bad-tasting food, etc., is not considered torture from a legal perspective, but it is a mild form of torture from a moral perspective. It is not acceptable to subject an innocent person to such treatment obviously, but few would object to a terrorism suspect being subjected to it. The reason is that the reward (in terms of the potential to gain information to save lives) justifies the moral cost. That brings me to the second idea, which is that the interrogation must be commensurate with the stakes. As the stakes go up, harsher treatment can be justified, if in fact that harsher treatment increases the probability of gaining useful information. I just don't agree that there should be this bright line that should never be crossed under any circumstances. Perhaps there are no real world circumstances which would justify putting somebody on a rack or gouging out his eyeballs, but certainly there are some plausible circumstances in which slapping somebody around would be justified. Or subjecting them to a 24 hour interrogation, or using drugs to lower their inhibitions. There are many methods which the lawyers would call torture (waterboarding being one) which I think fall far short of the most repugnant forms of torture whose manifest use led to the Anti-Torture laws in the first place. Waterboarding is certainly torture in my opinion, but it is a mild form whose use I think could be justified in the case of the Paris attack mastermind, as long as it was believed he had actionable information. A few weeks or months after his capture, I think waterboarding would not be justified, because his information would likely not be useful for averting an imminent attack.

While there are certainly degrees of mistreatment, the "proportionality" of mistreatment does not make the perpetrator less guilty of mistreatment. The abusive SOB is still an abusive SOB.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A conservative arguing FOR moral relativism, but only when it comes to torture. Interesting.

Hey if torture was so wrong clearly when an american tortured an innocent person it would be a crime. As it is clearly not a crime torture must not be very wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

Least we forget in some people's rush to invoke a knee-jerk mob mentality in favor of torture, our only example of the US using torture was an inefficient mess. Complete innocents were subjected to acts that, 60 years previously, were considered among the most heinous of war crimes. And how many times did KSM have to be tortured to get what information?

If you listen to any expert on the topic, be it experienced interrogator, neuroscientist, or even game theorist, they all agree that torture is your worst option for intelligence gathering. Even if morality were not a factor, there is no reason to choose to torture someone for intelligence over more effective and efficient options.

Why are we even still having this conversation, if not to attempt to rationalize the crimes of the Bush Administration?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Least we forget in some people's rush to invoke a knee-jerk mob mentality in favor of torture, our only example of the US using torture was an inefficient mess. Complete innocents were subjected to acts that, 60 years previously, were considered among the most heinous of war crimes. And how many times did KSM have to be tortured to get what information?

If you listen to any expert on the topic, be it experienced interrogator, neuroscientist, or even game theorist, they all agree that torture is your worst option for intelligence gathering. Even if morality were not a factor, there is no reason to choose to torture someone for intelligence over more effective and efficient options.

Why are we even still having this conversation, if not to attempt to rationalize the crimes of the Bush Administration?

Hey we punished those in Abu Graib when they were foolish enough to let pictures of them doing their job get out. That is why the CIA was smart enough to destroy such records, if they got released the public outcry would force them to be charged with the crimes they committed. Keeping it to text based records prevents that.

 

[sunmaster14]

Least we forget in some people's rush to invoke a knee-jerk mob mentality in favor of torture, our only example of the US using torture was an inefficient mess. Complete innocents were subjected to acts that, 60 years previously, were considered among the most heinous of war crimes. And how many times did KSM have to be tortured to get what information?

Actually, I am not arguing in favor of torture per se. I am arguing in favor of recognizing the mitigating circumstances for those accused of torture. It has always been my position that the virulence with which the Bush administration has been attacked for torturing the likes of KSM could only have been possible many years removed from the horror of 9/11 (and the associated fear of another attack). My main point is that most of the people who are so against torture now would have been in favor of it in 2002. One piece of evidence is that Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein were gung-ho for enhanced interrogation in 2002, and now they're some of the staunchest critics of the program.

My theory is that most people who were against torturing terrorists to get information a week ago are far more amenable to the idea today. Especially the French, who, by the way, tortured the living hell out of thousands during the Algerian civil war. I would not be particularly surprised to find out that the terrorist suspects they captured yesterday are having a rather rough time right about now.

If you listen to any expert on the topic, be it experienced interrogator, neuroscientist, or even game theorist, they all agree that torture is your worst option for intelligence gathering. Even if morality were not a factor, there is no reason to choose to torture someone for intelligence over more effective and efficient options.

Meh, their discomfort with the moral issues colors their views of its efficacy. I don't trust them to give an honest assesment.

Why are we even still having this conversation, if not to attempt to rationalize the crimes of the Bush Administration?

Well, yes, that is my main point actually.

 

[wareyin]

Actually, I am not arguing in favor of torture per se. I am arguing in favor of recognizing the mitigating circumstances for those accused of torture.

This is an interesting choice of words. It appears that you wish to afford due process to those accused of torture, while rationalizing away stripping due process away from those accused of terrorism by the aforementioned torture.

This really seems to be an 'it's wrong when you do it, but it's ok when we do it' argument, which I find to be lacking in morals as well as legality.

 

[DavidJames]

This is an interesting choice of words. It appears that you wish to afford due process to those accused of torture, while rationalizing away stripping due process away from those accused of terrorism by the aforementioned torture.

This really seems to be an 'it's wrong when you do it, but it's ok when we do it' argument, which I find to be lacking in morals as well as legality.

Bush is a Republican, does that help?