Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Upchurch]

I want it to remain illegal, so the perpetrators have to take the risk of prosecution. Risk of prosecution does focus the mind somewhat, and will minimize the chance that torture will be used without careful consideration of the benefits. The perpetrators know that they will be throwing themselves upon the mercy of a prosecutor or a jury and will have to justify their actions in moral terms.

Do you realize that under your suggested system, Bush and, more likely, Cheney would be convicted of their crimes? Mercy has nothing to do with whether or not they are guilty.

 

[Minoosh]

The x-axis is the level of inflicted pain. The y-axis is the societal benefit derived from that (e.g in terms of expected numbers of innocent lives saved). Your moral indifference curve would be that locus (i.e. set) of points where the societal benefit in your view just barely makes up for the moral repugnance you feel from the pain that was inflicted.

X is usually the independent variable, meaning that if we could generate greater and greater degrees of suffering, we also could expect infinite societal benefit. But I know what you mean.

But really it's more fundamental than that. We are the guys, in my opinion, because I prefer us to them.

I prefer interactions not wholly based on an "us vs. them" mindset.

If you prefer their society to ours, then you should see them as the good guys and us as the bad guys. That's fine, but don't expect that I won't shun you or worse when I find that out.

You would probably shun me anyway. I find things I like in many cultures. My cost-benefit analysis of any policy does not depend solely on its benefit to U.S. citizens.

In any case, torturing a handful of terrorists hardly makes a country of 320 million people into the bad guys, especially in comparison to who has chosen to be our enemy.

Doesn't it? Doesn't using America's imperfect but often superior justice system to gin up a legal defense for torture taint our brand? Didn't "us vs. them" legitimize the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Do you think those photographs helped America in any way?

Disliking policies that cause unnecessary suffering or death does not mean I prefer one society over another. Sometimes the policies are just wrong, like starting an optional war that hurt our ability to win a completely unrelated war.

If you grew up believing that then you were completely deceived.

I am talking about the standards of a baby boomer influenced by the generation that fought World War II. Yes, I knew the U.S. had done bad things but mostly my view was positive. The slaughter at My Lai was graphic evidence to the contrary. Now it's unpatriotic to even run photographs of flag-draped coffins, and Americans remain blessedly ignorant of suffering abroad.

I don't know if you "got the best of anglolawyer." Maybe you did, but I take your pronouncements with a grain of salt. And analogies claiming that handcuffing someone differs only quantitatively from burning a person alive do not IMO help your case.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So strange that sunmaster implies that going against policies of the US government is anti-american...............unless it's a liberal policy, then it's ok.

 

[sunmaster14]

That may be the case in modern Africa, but there was rather more to it in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

There was certainly some personal disputes involved in some of the Salem Village accusations, and some avarice, but you would be wrong to assume that that such motives were most or even a large part of the causes.

The colony was a theocracy, by any definition of the word. The foremost scholars and leaders there were quite convinced that witches did exist. Cotton Mather, a Harvard trained theologian and one of the most respected religious figures in the colony even wrote a treatise on the subject which was widely read on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a somewhat odd twist his inquisitive nature got him in trouble, not for his views on witchcraft, but his support for smallpox vaccination.

Thanks, just recently in fact I had learned about the history of the smallpox vaccination (technically it was an inoculation since it used live smallpox) and Cotton Mather's role in promoting it. An interesting example of where pseudoscience actually turned out to be good science. I suppose one can see why homeopathy might have caught on.

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you realize that under your suggested system, Bush and, more likely, Cheney would be convicted of their crimes? Mercy has nothing to do with whether or not they are guilty.

This reminds me of what William Buckley once said, supposedly:

... to say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.

Pushing old ladies is a crime. The fact that a bus was hurtling down on the old lady prior to the push is a mitigating circumstance which I think a prosecutor or a jury would find sufficient for exoneration.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I prefer interactions not wholly based on an "us vs. them" mindset.



You would probably shun me anyway. I find things I like in many cultures. My cost-benefit analysis of any policy does not depend solely on its benefit to U.S. citizens.

Well, I might shun you as a serial abuser of strawmen. You are reducing my argument to a mindless, patriotic one, but my argument is based on my own moral compass. I believe a culture which reduces women to 2nd class status, which punishes apostasy and blasphemy, which suppresses free speech and free markets is not only far inferior to my culture, but it is a significant threat to my culture. I do not believe that it is necessary to fight with one arm tied behind my back. Protestations to the effect that I am undermining my culture by not fighting with one arm tied behind my back is mostly hackneyed nonsense in my opinion.

Doesn't it? Doesn't using America's imperfect but often superior justice system to gin up a legal defense for torture taint our brand? Didn't "us vs. them" legitimize the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Do you think those photographs helped America in any way?

Not really. It hurt Bush politically, but other than that I think the effect was negligible. I actually started this thread because I think the French are going to surpass us in brutality in their own war on terror. They'll probably do a better job of keeping quiet about it though. Other countries don't like to air their dirty laundry quite like Americans do.

Disliking policies that cause unnecessary suffering or death does not mean I prefer one society over another. Sometimes the policies are just wrong, like starting an optional war that hurt our ability to win a completely unrelated war.

Once again, you're attacking strawmen. I dislike certain policies too on moral grounds - the drone assassination program for instance. I have a moral indifference curve as I've described. Waterboarding KSM falls above my curve. Killing alleged terrorists plus some innocent bystanders from 30,000 feet falls below it.

<snip>

I don't know if you "got the best of anglolawyer." Maybe you did, but I take your pronouncements with a grain of salt. And analogies claiming that handcuffing someone differs only quantitatively from burning a person alive do not IMO help your case.

It would if you could understand my argument.

 

[Upchurch]

Pushing old ladies is a crime. The fact that a bus was hurtling down on the old lady prior to the push is a mitigating circumstance which I think a prosecutor or a jury would find sufficient for exoneration.

Except that the bus was three miles away at the time and the old lady was sitting on a bench on the sidewalk. The mitigating circumstances you imagine were there, weren't.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I believe a culture which reduces women to 2nd class status, which punishes apostasy and blasphemy, which suppresses free speech and free markets is not only far inferior to my culture, but it is a significant threat to my culture.

<snip>

I agree.

Which is why I believe we need to get all the Southern Baptists out of the country.

There's a lot more of them a lot closer to me than Muslims.

 

[sunmaster14]

Except that the bus was three miles away at the time and the old lady was sitting on a bench on the sidewalk. The mitigating circumstances you imagine were there, weren't.

Maybe, but the question is did the people doing the pushing legitimately believe that the bus was much closer and the old lady was in its path? I think so.

 

[sunmaster14]

I agree.

Which is why I believe we need to get all the Southern Baptists out of the country.

There's a lot more of them a lot closer to me than Muslims.

How do the Southern Baptists punish apostasy or blasphemy? As far as I'm concerned if a religion doesn't punish apostasy or blasphemy, then it is mostly harmless.

 

[Meed]

For those who disagree, think of Jack Bauer in 24 Hours.

Appeal to a fictional character in a ridiculously over the top action TV show?

Or better yet, imagine yourself in a situation where your wife, daughter, etc. is going to be killed if you or the police can't get to them in time. But suppose you were able to find one of the culprits and you had him alone in your basement with a pair of vice grips, a blowtorch, some nails and a hammer, what would you do?

It's irrelevant what people would do under some far fetched scenario. I'm sure I could invent scenarios in which most people would steal or murder, but that doesn't mean those things should be legal.

Also, for all of us to be able to sit in front of computer screens doing what we are doing now is a result of people's blood that was shed in wars from the Revolutionary War up to current war(s) and the terrible horrifying things that happen in those situations.

Was there a war defending people's rights to use computers / post on message boards? I mean, they do have computers in England... Ted Kaczynski - Army of One?

That's oversimplified and overly dramatic. Mostly we are the good guys because the way in which we have organized society appears to generate far greater happiness for the greatest number, as compared to what the bad guys can or will accomplish.

No we are not--I strongly object to your reasoning. Say family A and family B are neighbors. Family A has organized their household in a way that makes them very happy, while family B is disfunctional and unhappy. Suppose family A starts throwing bricks through the windows of family B's house. They can't then say "we are the good guys because the way in which we've organized our household appears to generate far greater happiness than what family B can or will accomplish".

Western states tend to be very good domestically compared with the rest of the world. In terms of international conflicts, however, countries like the US, the UK and France have no moral high ground and cannot reasonably be called "the good guys".

 

[sunmaster14]

Appeal to a fictional character in a ridiculously over the top action TV show?

The protagonists of TV shows often reflect our moral values. If they didn't the shows wouldn't be popular. The fact that the character of Jack Bauer is popular, despite the fact that he resorts to torture at the drop of a hat, does give us insight into innate human morality and what kinds of standards most people would find acceptable.

No we are not--I strongly object to your reasoning. Say family A and family B are neighbors. Family A has organized their household in a way that makes them very happy, while family B is disfunctional and unhappy. Suppose family A starts throwing bricks through the windows of family B's house. They can't then say "we are the good guys because the way in which we've organized our household appears to generate far greater happiness than what family B can or will accomplish".

Why would family A be throwing bricks at family B? That doesn't sound to me like family A was more functional, unless they were defending themselves in some way. Provoking others is a negative utility strategy.

Western states tend to be very good domestically compared with the rest of the world. In terms of international conflicts, however, countries like the US, the UK and France have no moral high ground and cannot reasonably be called "the good guys".

I disagree. We kill more only because we have the means to do so. If other cultures had our level of military superiority, we would most likely have been wiped out or enslaved a long time ago. For example, in human history has there ever been a military power as dominant as the US which hasn't used its military power for conquest?

 

[jimbob]

Appeal to a fictional character in a ridiculously over the top action TV show?



It's irrelevant what people would do under some far fetched scenario. I'm sure I could invent scenarios in which most people would steal or murder, but that doesn't mean those things should be legal.



Was there a war defending people's rights to use computers / post on message boards? I mean, they do have computers in England... Ted Kaczynski - Army of One?





No we are not--I strongly object to your reasoning. Say family A and family B are neighbors. Family A has organized their household in a way that makes them very happy, while family B is disfunctional and unhappy. Suppose family A starts throwing bricks through the windows of family B's house. They can't then say "we are the good guys because the way in which we've organized our household appears to generate far greater happiness than what family B can or will accomplish".

Western states tend to be very good domestically compared with the rest of the world. In terms of international conflicts, however, countries like the US, the UK and France have no moral high ground and cannot reasonably be called "the good guys".

Interesting that you mentioned Ted Kaczynski

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/impromptu-man/201205/harvards-experiment-the-unabomber-class-62


or the wiki summary:

Harvard human experiments[edit]

From late 1959 to early 1962, Murray was responsible for the ethically questionable, CIA-sponsored Project MKUltra experiments in which twenty-two undergraduates were used as research subjects.[3][4] Among other purposes, Murray's experiments focused on measuring people's reactions under extreme stress. The unwitting undergraduates were submitted to what Murray himself called "vehement, sweeping and personally abusive" attacks. Assaults to their egos, cherished ideas and beliefs were the vehicle used to cause high levels of stress and distress. Among them was 17-year-old Ted Kaczynski, who went on to become the Unabomber, a serial killer targeting academics and technologists. [5] Alston Chase's book Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist connects Kaczynski's abusive experiences under Murray to his later criminal career.

Possibly the Unabomber was blowback from earlier CIA-sponsored experimentation in the area of psychological torture.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe, but the question is did the people doing the pushing legitimately believe that the bus was much closer and the old lady was in its path? I think so.

That doesn't matter. According to the system you are proposing, they weren't careful enough and made the worst kind of mistake. They gambled with the lives of innocent people for no benefit whatsoever.

Why do they deserve any mercy when they showed none themselves?

(This is all ignoring, for a moment, that torture was at no point necessary.)

 

[Minoosh]

You are reducing my argument to a mindless, patriotic one, but my argument is based on my own moral compass.

You're seeing things that aren't there. We have different concepts of "us" and "them." Not a big deal.

Protestations to the effect that I am undermining my culture by not fighting with one arm tied behind my back is mostly hackneyed nonsense in my opinion.

Sorry, was this aimed at me?

Not really. It hurt Bush politically, but other than that I think the effect was negligible.

I disagree.

Once again, you're attacking strawmen. I dislike certain policies too on moral grounds - the drone assassination program for instance. ... Killing alleged terrorists plus some innocent bystanders from 30,000 feet falls below it.

Yes, the altitude makes all the difference.

It would if you could understand my argument.

I don't see you making a coherent argument. I really don't. I'm not just trying to be difficult.

 

[Minoosh]

An interesting example of where pseudoscience actually turned out to be good science.

Off-topic, ignore me at will but what pseudoscience are you talking about? Innoculation proponents based their case on empirical observation.

Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination
http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

To make their point, Mather and Boylston used a statistical approach to compare the mortality rate of natural smallpox infection with that contracted by variolation. During the great epidemic of 1721, approximately half of Boston's 12,000 citizens contracted smallpox. The fatality rate for the naturally contracted disease was 14%, whereas Boylston and Mather reported a mortality rate of only 2% among variolated individuals (12). This may have been the first time that comparative analysis was used to evaluate a medical procedure.

I suppose one can see why homeopathy might have caught on.

"I suppose one can see." "One could say." Handy phrases, those. If you can point to a source that supports your elliptical analogy to homeopathy please do.

 

[Meed]

The protagonists of TV shows often reflect our moral values. If they didn't the shows wouldn't be popular.

Walter White? Tony Soprano? Francis Underwood? Daniel Plainview? Dennis Reynolds / Deandra Reynolds / Frank Reynolds / Charlie Kelly / Mac? Light Yagami?

Why would family A be throwing bricks at family B? That doesn't sound to me like family A was more functional, unless they were defending themselves in some way.

I already stated their criteria was "We're the good guys because the way in which we've organized our household appears to generate far greater happiness than what family B can or will accomplish". Which is your own criteria, except applied to households rather than countries/societies.

Provoking others is a negative utility strategy.

Not necessarily. Maybe they want to encourage family B to move out, so they can up their property value. Maybe it works.

Even if it were a "negative utility strategy", it's irrelevant. The premise of the hypothetical is that they have much higher utility than family B, not that they are perfectly optimal.

If we keep in mind that the point of the analogy is about Western countries being "the good guys", your objection makes less sense still, because I don't think that anyone would claim that Western countries never provoke other countries. Yet surely you wouldn't argue that "that's a negative utility strategy, so Western countries must not be better off than others".

I disagree. We kill more only because we have the means to do so. If other cultures had our level of military superiority, we would most likely have been wiped out or enslaved a long time ago. For example, in human history has there ever been a military power as dominant as the US which hasn't used its military power for conquest?

How is this disagreement? I said they have no moral high ground, not that other countries *do* have moral high ground. I agree - great powers have historically had immoral/amoral foreign policies. And they still do. The US is no exception.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks, just recently in fact I had learned about the history of the smallpox vaccination (technically it was an inoculation since it used live smallpox) and Cotton Mather's role in promoting it. An interesting example of where pseudoscience actually turned out to be good science. I suppose one can see why homeopathy might have caught on.

It was *literally* vaccination as it used the cowpox virus.

 

[sunmaster14]

That doesn't matter. According to the system you are proposing, they weren't careful enough and made the worst kind of mistake. They gambled with the lives of innocent people for no benefit whatsoever.

Why do they deserve any mercy when they showed none themselves?

(This is all ignoring, for a moment, that torture was at no point necessary.)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about the enhanced interrogation measures applied, with prior authorization, to a handful of known terrorists by CIA officials. There were other instances of unauthorized mistreatment (in one case resulting in death I believe), as well as renditions (which is a different kettle of fish), but I think that stuff was actually investigated and it was decided there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

[sunmaster14]

You're seeing things that aren't there. We have different concepts of "us" and "them." Not a big deal.

Do we? "Us" = us, and "them" = groups who are trying to kill us using whatever means they can get their hands on. It's not really that complicated.

<snip>

Yes, the altitude makes all the difference.

It does for several reasons. First, you are much less sure of your target. Second, you are more likely to have collateral damage. Third, you forego any possibility of intelligence gathering, especially through interrogation.

I don't see you making a coherent argument. I really don't. I'm not just trying to be difficult.

Ok, well I won't waste my time then. If you have an epiphany and would like to discuss, then I'll be around.