Torture: getting Cheney to admit to the Tate murders...

[Dorian Gray]

More semantics. I'm wearying of it.

The way you could know if the information was trustworthy would be to further investigate what you have learned and see if it can be verified, or if the info, in fact, actually solves the crisis at hand. It this not obvious? I wouldn't advocate blindly acting on any intelligence gained, immediately, and without forthought.

I still don't understand the desire to quibble on this, especially with differing terminology and semantic games. I would honestly believe that virtually every rational being on the planet would accept that yes, there have probably been times (maybe even only the remotest, fewest times imaginable) that torture has produced a useful result.

That does not mean it's justifiable in any way either, I can't stress that enough. I'm just curious about the ongoing intellectual dishonesty of a few. I mean come on already, stop playing games here. Why the desire to find ways to rationalize that position?

"Guys! That's not fair! Stop using semantics to defeat my arguments!"

You act like your belief should trump your lack of evidence, and we're playing games?

 

[Dorian Gray]

True enough except when the ad hominem goes directly to the credibility of the person making the statement. If somebody says to you, "Well, David Duke says that black people are mentally inferior," are you seriously going to get into a debate about genetics and the nature of IQ? I'd just go with the ad hom in that case; "David Duke's a racist moron and if you believe him, so are you." David Duke has no credibility when it comes to the topic of race.

In a similar fashion, Jesse has pissed away any credibility he might have had as a critic of the Bush Administration by his embrace of Trooferism.

So if I say "Jesus is our lord and savior and 2+2=4", are you going to start questioning your calculator?

 

[Whiplash]

What about those who say that even if it does produce trustworthy information occasionally, there is no way of knowing when that happens, which is functionally the same as never producing it?

I say they are playing semantic word games to make their point. First off, the idea there is no way of knowing is simply wrong. As I said to you in the other thread, you can verify and follow up on the info obtained and see if it's accurate.

If there is a bomb about to go off somewhere, and you have someone who you think knows where it is, and you torture him, and he gives you a location, you go look there and see if it's there. If it is, well what do you know, it worked and was verified. No bomb? Ok, he was lying, back to sqaure one.

"Guys! That's not fair! Stop using semantics to defeat my arguments!"

You act like your belief should trump your lack of evidence, and we're playing games?

What a joke. "Stop using semantics to defeat my arguments"? More like "stop using semantics to muddy the water". My lack of evidence? Evidence of what? All I have ever repeatedly said is that arguing that torture never produces an accurate result is completely silly. And I'm giving examples of why I think that is. What evidence am I supposed to dig up? This strikes me as being so common sense that it's ridiculous to even have to argue it.

Do you understand what it means when people use semantics to argue a position instead of dealing with the facts invovled with the position in the first place? You are playing WORD GAMES. Not me. I keep giving examples and asking specific questions. You only ever keep twisting it into something else like some ongoing logical word puzzle.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I say they are playing semantic word games to make their point. First off, the idea there is no way of knowing is simply wrong. As I said to you in the other thread, you can verify and follow up on the info obtained and see if it's accurate.

When you are making the decision whether this is a case that will justify breaking the law to get information, at that point you have no way of knowing whether or not torture will produce useful information. Even if you have a very strong suspicion (brought to you by the same guys who thought they had a strong case for huge caches of illegal WMDs in Iraq), you have no way of knowing that torture is the ONLY way to get that information.

Again, at the point where you make the moral decision whether torture is justified, you have no way of knowing whether torture will produce good information. You also have no way of knowing if it is the ONLY way to get that information.

And again, even if you think it's justified, you would still be breaking the law which very clearly and unquestionably states that there is no situation that legally justifies committing torture. To refresh your memory, Part 1 Article 2.2 of the Convention Against Torture is:

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

The U.S. signed and ratified the C.A.T. It expressed many reservations, but not one of them (that I'm aware of--and I have read them) was directed at this point. We agreed that there is no situation ever that justifies torture.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Try this one, Whiplash: you are making the decision whether or not to spend your last dollar on a lottery ticket. The ticket might end up being a winner worth tens of millions of dollars. Do you agree that when you are making the decision whether or not to buy that ticket that you cannot possibly know whether or not it's a winner? The fact that you can later verify the ticket and know isn't part of the information you have when you are making the decision.

Again, though, the end result of committing a crime isn't a defense. At best, it's a mitigating factor. If I rob a bank and spend the money on a loved one's life-saving surgery, the fact that I spent the money on something good does not make my action somehow NOT the crime of bank robbery. I could use my sob story as a mitigating factor, and the court might go very easy on me at sentencing time.

 

[Cicero]

Because having something done to YOU in a controlled environment that can be stopped at any time is SO the same as killing someone in a war.

Analogy: Do you and your wife fight? Yes. Do you and your wife have anal sex? That's something a man keeps to himself. And YOU would say "Whoa, there goes his credibility - I doubt he's even married, since he's all Chatty Cathy about fighting but shut down tight about the sodomy."

I hope you get my point. If not, please enjoy the creepy feeling you get when you read my analogy.

But since Ventura was never in combat, never set foot in Vietnam, never fired a firearm in anger, your entire post is utter bollocks.

 

[WildCat]

Um, yeah. Jesse Ventura is wrong about the WTC collapse.

Wait, isn't the discussion about waterboarding and the merits of torturing terror suspects?

Yep.

Maybe a better witness can be found than Jesse Ventura?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Comment on Jesse's prosecute idea:

Jesse, of all people, has the money and connections to raise the funds to hire a lawyer to write up the charges. He would then direct the licensed attorney to cite precisely which American law anyone he's wishing to prosecute broke, and under which statute they ought to be charged and convicted.

He was a governor, FFS, he ought to know how this works, all this legal stuff and going to court over laws, statutes, signed into law by the Chief Executive of a state or nation.

Yet he doesn't bother. Is he just sounding off, or is he sincere? He got involved in politics, he knows how much work doing stuff like this takes, and yet for all his talk, he does not seem to have acted on this feeling of his.

Sorry, Gov Jesse, I am not impressed.

As to the persons discussing this here: how many of you have bothered to look up the law, and laws, of the US that are relevant in this case and written up charges against specific persons? Under what statute do you deem which party should be charged?

Enough of this beating around the bush, how about some freaking specifics here! Quit screwing around.

I see a lot of wind, a lot of noise.

I see no action.

Show me.

DR

 

[Carnivore]

Fair enough. However, it does mention BUD/S training, which is the modern version of what Ventura took.

Yes, Ventura went through UDT/R training, the precursor to the modern BUD/S program, as did all UDT frogmen and SEALs. However he has claimed in subsequent years that this alone entitled him to be called a SEAL as the SEALs and UDTs were merged 9 years after he left the service. (This claim has now made it on to Ventura's wikipedia page)

This claim was disputed by both former UDT divers and SEALs. Ventura was confronted by a former SEAL officer in 1999 about his status.

He also claimed that he had always made the distinction between his own military service and that of the SEALs. This is flagrantly untrue. He had been identifying himself as a SEAL for years, claiming membership in SEAL Team One in his book "I Aint Got Time To Bleed".

(Post partly quoted from an older thread)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As to the persons discussing this here: how many of you have bothered to look up the law, and laws, of the US that are relevant in this case and written up charges against specific persons? Under what statute do you deem which party should be charged?

I've been doing exactly this for some time. The Convention Against Torture and U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113C Section 1340 are the pertinent laws. The specific party that should be charged depends on which incident you're talking about AND on how much of a given incident was the result of policy-makers. From what we know, Bush himself seems to be implicated in authorizing torture.

Enough of this beating around the bush, how about some freaking specifics here! Quit screwing around.

I see a lot of wind, a lot of noise.

I've been citing the laws for quite some time. I've shown repeatedly how waterboarding prisoners during interrogation fits all the legal criteria of torture. I've also pointed out that even under the horrendous re-interpretation of these laws offered by Bush's legal minds (where the only thing that counts as torture is pain equivalent to the pain of organ failure, loss of bodily function and death), we have at least several clear cut cases where prisoners were tortured to death, yet no one has been prosecuted for this crime. How much more specific do you want to get?

I see no action.

What type of action are you interested in? We're talking about crimes not torts. I can't initiate a case. That's up to A.G. Holder.

Also, this is a discussion forum. The only "action" you're likely to see on a discussion forum is discussion. (FWIW, I've also written letters and made phone calls to various elected officials--including the President--on this issue, and plan to continue to do so. But you won't see that "action" here.)

 

[INRM]

JoeTheJuggler,

All good points.

 

[Texas]

Okay, what about the more recent example?

Soufan... I read a profile on him and he really is an impressive figure. He also has a long history of contempt for the CIA dating back to the Cole bombing. He was extremely close to John O'Neil and his death on 911 hit him very hard and according to his account he had enough information to stop 911 had the CIA only listened. He could be right but his story appears to be a bit too pat. He left the FBI in 2005 I think and has become a bit of a self promoter. There is never a shortage of dissenting voices when it comes to these types of issues but the storied rivalry between the FBI and CIA should be taken into account when assessing the objectivity of their testimonies.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . If there is a bomb about to go off somewhere, and you have someone who you think knows where it is, and you torture him . . . . . . . .

Stop with the 'bomb somewhere' routine. There never was a bomb anywhere.
There was plenty of fear, panic, bigotry, perversion, cruelty, GDMF stupidity, arrogance, incompetence, and loads of denial. But no bomb.

So stop with the bomb already.

 

[Upchurch]

He could be right but his story appears to be a bit too pat. He left the FBI in 2005 I think and has become a bit of a self promoter. There is never a shortage of dissenting voices when it comes to these types of issues but the storied rivalry between the FBI and CIA should be taken into account when assessing the objectivity of their testimonies.

So do you accept or reject his testimony? It seems your only objection to it is that it doesn't feel right rather than anything concrete.

 

[theprestige]

Remember how the Unabomber case was solved? Imagine a hypothetical where investigators had someone in custody who they had very good reason to think had information that could solve the Unabomber case. They couldn't possibly know that this is the ONLY way to get that information. In fact, it could be that the Unabomber's brother was already about to pick up the phone. . . .

That seems like an odd way to go about solving problems, Joe.

Is that what you get paid to do? Sit back, put your feet up, and tell your customers "well, I could put in the effort necessary to solve your problem, but I'm going to do nothing on the principle that your problem could possibly go away on its own"?

Is that what you pay your taxes for? So that the FBI can not investigate things on your behalf?

Personally, when I hire someone to do a job, I expect them to actually do the job, to the best of their ability, along the likeliest line of success, and not to fool around with maybes, hypotheticals, and wishful thinking about lucky breaks.

As for "other methods", what other methods do you propose? Asking politely? Offering the subject ice cream, or foot massages?

 

[Marc39]

Stop with the 'bomb somewhere' routine. There never was a bomb anywhere.
There was plenty of fear, panic, bigotry, perversion, cruelty, GDMF stupidity, arrogance, incompetence, and loads of denial. But no bomb.

So stop with the bomb already.

Stop, too, with al Qaeda's plans to destroy the Library Tower in Los Angeles?

 

[Whiplash]

Stop with the 'bomb somewhere' routine. There never was a bomb anywhere.
There was plenty of fear, panic, bigotry, perversion, cruelty, GDMF stupidity, arrogance, incompetence, and loads of denial. But no bomb.

So stop with the bomb already.

You know, it was just a quick example I came up with without much thought. It was not meant to be a scare tactic or anything. It was not meant to imply that all the torture took place to stop some imminent bombing. It was just a simple example.

Why didn't you address anything else I said? Just nitpicking this part? Why?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That seems like an odd way to go about solving problems, Joe.

Is that what you get paid to do? Sit back, put your feet up, and tell your customers "well, I could put in the effort necessary to solve your problem, but I'm going to do nothing on the principle that your problem could possibly go away on its own"?

Is that what you pay your taxes for? So that the FBI can not investigate things on your behalf?

Personally, when I hire someone to do a job, I expect them to actually do the job, to the best of their ability, along the likeliest line of success, and not to fool around with maybes, hypotheticals, and wishful thinking about lucky breaks.

As for "other methods", what other methods do you propose? Asking politely? Offering the subject ice cream, or foot massages?

First, please leave off with the personal references.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. That if you don't torture someone, you are doing nothing. That's false in itself. Believe it or not, the vast majority of crimes that are solved are solved without recourse to torture.

My point was a refutation of these absurd hypotheticals that claim you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that torturing someone is the only way to save lives. I'm pointing out that in fact you never can know this for certain--not even hypothetically.

This is, I suspect, exactly the reason why the C.A.T. included such strong, clear and unambiguous language that you may never justify torture by any such circumstances. . .not ever.

If you allow torture in some exceptional circumstances, you have effectively removed the ban on torture. What you think is sufficient to justify it, will certainly differ from what someone else (even those you consider to be the bad guys).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Comment on Jesse's prosecute idea:

Jesse, of all people, has the money and connections to raise the funds to hire a lawyer to write up the charges. He would then direct the licensed attorney to cite precisely which American law anyone he's wishing to prosecute broke, and under which statute they ought to be charged and convicted.

He was a governor, FFS, he ought to know how this works, all this legal stuff and going to court over laws, statutes, signed into law by the Chief Executive of a state or nation.

Yet he doesn't bother. Is he just sounding off, or is he sincere? He got involved in politics, he knows how much work doing stuff like this takes, and yet for all his talk, he does not seem to have acted on this feeling of his.

It's a criminal matter not a tort (as I pointed out already).

The laws involved, as I've pointed out repeatedly, are not the state laws, though many states do have laws regarding torture, but that usually doesn't refer to acts of a government agent, and in those circumstances torture is usually an aggravating factor in sentencing and not a crime in itself.

Not that I'm defending Jesse Ventura, but I'm pretty sure a state governor has no authority to bring charges in these cases. I'm pretty sure it is up to A.G. Holder to do it. The best Ventura or I can do is to urge Holder to do it. I suspect the President can also direct Holder to look into these matters and encourage him to bring charges, so I've also been writing letters to the White House.

 

[theprestige]

This is, I suspect, exactly the reason why the C.A.T. included such strong, clear and unambiguous language that you may never justify torture by any such circumstances. . .not ever.

If you allow torture in some exceptional circumstances, you have effectively removed the ban on torture. What you think is sufficient to justify it, will certainly differ from what someone else (even those you consider to be the bad guys).

I'm going to address this point out of order, just to get it out of the way.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that as a matter of fact, torture (whatever the definition may be) is illegal under American law. I am in this thread, wholly uninterested in this point. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is about whether or not torture is effective; and by extension whether or not it is, in principle, justifiable.

That current law holds that it is unjustifiable under any circumstances, regardless of its efficacy, is a claim I accept wholeheartedly and without reservation. I have no objection to you returning to this claim in future posts. I hope that in the same spirit, you will not take offense if I ignore it.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. That if you don't torture someone, you are doing nothing. That's false in itself. Believe it or not, the vast majority of crimes that are solved are solved without recourse to torture.

First, while I admit to indulging in a little hyperbole, I don't think the dichotomy is false per se.

As I understand it, you're arguing that a certain course of action (in this case, "torture"), could reasonably not be taken, on the principle that some other course of action or event might achieve the same result for a lesser cost. You give the example of the UNABOM case, where the FBI could have hypothetically refrained from torturing a suspect, since, a willing witness might call them at any time, thus removing the need for torture.

But this principle applies to any expenditure of effort, to solve any problem. The FBI could conceivably have not bothered to investigate the case at all, on the same principle that they could get a lucky break at any moment--thus saving substantial man-hours, tax dollars, and other resources that could have been more fruitfully expended elsewhere. Exactly where else, nobody knows, because as you point out, you can never know for sure what methods will work the best.

This doesn't cause a firefighter to refrain from rushing into a burning building to save someone trapped inside, on the principle that for all he knows, they could escape on their own at any moment, without exposing him to grave danger for no reason.

And it doesn't cause a general to refrain from putting his men in harm's way, on the principle that the political will to fight will slacken in one government or the other, and that the war could end at any moment. Which brings me to my second point.

Warfare is not criminal justice. And believe it or not, the vast majority of battles have been won by methods far worse than waterboarding--mass slaughter (of one's friends, as well as one's enemies), for example.

If the city of Dresden could have been neutralized as an Axis supply junction and manufacturing center, by waterboarding one Nazi officer, would that not have been preferable to the horrible firebombing that was undertaken instead?

If Imperial Japan could have been subjugated by shoving one Japanese admiral into a small box with an unspecified (but harmless) insect, would anyone have argued in favor of nuking two of their cities anyway, on the principle that we couldn't know for sure that the "torture" would work?

My point was a refutation of these absurd hypotheticals that claim you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that torturing someone is the only way to save lives. I'm pointing out that in fact you never can know this for certain--not even hypothetically.

I'm not sure anybody has made such a hypothetical. Certainly I haven't. As far as I'm concerned, it's a strawman, and thus eminently refutable. But by the same token, totally pointless to refute.

In almost all real-world situations, the decision to do anything, at whatever cost is entailed, is based not on absolute certainty, but on a weighing of options and likelihoods, and a weighing of consequences.

We don't send the Space Shuttle to the ISS because we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it and its crew will complete their mission successfully and return safely to Earth.

We don't elect a president because we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they are the best possible choice--or even a good choice.

We don't arrest a suspect and deprive them of their liberties because WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they are guilty, and we don't convict and sentence them because WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they are guilty.

We don't send rescue crews into a collapsed mine because we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the trapped miners are still alive, and that the rescue crew won't be lost as well to the same dangers.

And we don't "torture" people because we know for certain that torture is the only method--or even the best method--for getting information.

We do all these things because, based on the information we already have about the situation, and what we already know about the methods available to us, is that one of these methods is more likely than the others to get the job done within the constraints of the scenario.

As a final example, let's take another look at the firefighter who rushes into a burning building to rescue someone, and dies in the fire while it turns out there was nothing they could have done anyway. When questioned, the Fire Chief says "at the time, we believed that sending Fireman Bob into the building was the best course of action, and we stand by that decision." Would you accuse the Chief of claiming to KNOW FOR CERTAIN what was necessary, and argue that he should have refrained from sending anybody into the building, because for all he knew the person inside could be already dead, or have escaped on their own?