Effectiveness of Torture

[BeAChooser]

Whether you argue that torture shouldn't be used because it doesn't work, or that torture should be used because it does work, you're still at that same low moral level.

So you think the morality of inflicting some temporary pain or discomfort on a known, very bad terrorist to elicit information that might save hundreds or thousands of lives is the same as that of a person consciously not inflicting such temporary pain and discomfort, even though they know the result of not doing it will be the almost certain death of hundreds or thousands of innocent people? In other words, you're an advocate of moral equivalency?

 

[Thunder]

Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.

excuse me, I lived about 1.5 miles from the WTC. I breathed in the yellow air for weeks. And I went down there to help in the recovery. I need no education about the event.

Now, do i have problem with KSM getting waterboarded? not as much as some schmuck who got ratted out in Afghanistan.

its not the real, well known terrorists i am worried about..its the guys who we have neither tried, nor presented with evidence, that they are terrorists.

i do NOT trust our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to give us "real" terrorists, 100% of the time.

 

[SezMe]

Just to play devil's advoacate here and attempt to not derail.

How bout...Since it's been agreed that abortion experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's a baby or not, should we not ban abortion?

That's not the right analogy. The issue is effectiveness so the analogy is "is abortion effective in terminating the pregnancy?" I know of no debate on that matter.

Thus the OP states to ignore the definition of torture and focus on effectiveness. That's the topic.

ETA: BAC, take notice.

 

[Towlie]

My main concern are the 1000's of innocent lives that might perish simply because the left is too squeamish to cause temporary pain and discomfort in a very bad, known terrorist who may have information about an impending attack. Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.

I call that the "nothing is evil" argument. For any act you can imagine and would normally call evil, it's always possible to dream up a hypothetical scenario that would excuse it. There's nothing special about torture in this regard, such arguments can be adapted to excuse rape, murder, child molesting, or any other evil act that you can possibly think of.

 

[SezMe]

I think the topic is a pretty dead one to be honest. Right now too much is unknown to make a reliable skeptical inquiry about the effectiveness of water boarding KSM.

I'm in agreement with corp here. But even beyond KSM, I don't think any of us has definitive evidence either way regarding the issue raised in the OP. Each of us is just going to argue our previously held bias and fail utterly to convince the other side. Sometimes, on other topics, even the discussion can be worthwhile but here...not so much.

 

[BeAChooser]

i do NOT trust our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to give us "real" terrorists, 100% of the time.

But it appears the CIA only used enhanced techniques under very restrictive conditions and with close monitoring of the subjects by doctors, etc. I don't think there is any question that the three who were waterboarded were very, very bad people, or that we had good reason to suspect they might know about other serious impending attacks against US interests. I don't trust a government that will blindly rule out the use of a tool that may have already saved many lives and prevented serious terrorist attacks based on a definition of torture that sees no moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person and allowing 1000s of people to be murdered simply because that definition precludes the use of brief pain or discomfort to elicit information. That sort of policy is going to get many people killed.

 

[corplinx]

i do NOT trust our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to give us "real" terrorists, 100% of the time.

There is no current or future water boarding program. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

It seems to have been an exception made for three exceptional assets:
1. the guy behind 911
2. the guy behind the cole bombing
3. their logistics and whereabouts guy

 

[BeAChooser]

That's not the right analogy.

Drysdale's analogy is perfectly appropriate to this discussion. The argument being made in both cases is that the inability to reach consensus in the face of uncertainty suggests we do nothing given serious consequences. thaiboxerken's statement was based on the assumption that almost everyone will agree that ANY *torture* is bad so we shouldn't do it if we are at all uncertain about whether it will save lives. Drydale's analogy assumes almost everyone will agree that killing a baby is bad so we shouldn't kill a fetus if we are at all uncertain about whether it is a baby. Of course, that challenges one of the left's most important issues so of course the left will claim its a "different" situation entirely.

 

[BeAChooser]

I call that the "nothing is evil" argument.

Call it what you want. You are avoiding the question and every one can see it. So answer the question. Do you see a moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person knowing that might save many lives, and choosing not to inflict brief pain or discomfort knowing that doing so will condemn those lives to almost certain death. Yes or no?

 

[corplinx]

I think the question is moot. Who cares if it works or not?

At some point we may capture Osama Bin Laden. It will be assumed that he might have knowledge of plots being birthed or in progress. At that point, I expect he will be tortured in a foreign country to obtain this information under the practice called "Rendition". Personally, if that is the case, I would rather we carry it out. KSM was seen to by the red cross and given adequate food/etc in Gitmo.

Option A:
We send OBL to some other country where they do who knows what to him including possibly physical torture, sodomize him, cut him, beat him, etc.

Option B:
We could water board him in Gitmo under strict controls. The red cross could see to him. He would have clean living quarters and have adequate food.

Under the current administration's policies, it appears we will outsource the hard stuff via rendition.

Option C:
Upchurch takes him out for steak and beer every night. They play chess matches. OBL eventually talks.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm in agreement with corp here. But even beyond KSM, I don't think any of us has definitive evidence either way regarding the issue raised in the OP. Each of us is just going to argue our previously held bias and fail utterly to convince the other side.

So why not just join me in demanding that Obama release whatever reports or data is needed to know whether the CIA told the truth or not when they claimed that enhanced methods worked, saved lives and prevented terrorists attacks that would not have been stopped otherwise? I'm curious why so many on your side of this issue refuse to do that ... either ignore my plea or post various lame excuses for Obama not doing it.

 

[Towlie]

Call it what you want. You are avoiding the question and every one can see it. So answer the question. Do you see a moral difference between inflicting brief pain or discomfort on a very bad person knowing that might save many lives, and choosing not to inflict brief pain or discomfort knowing that doing so will condemn those lives to almost certain death. Yes or no?

Suppose this hypothetical terrorist doesn't respond to your torture, but he agrees to disarm the ticking time bomb if you agree to perform an unnatural and thoroughly humiliating act while his friends make a video of it to spread around the Internet? Would you agree to that? Or do your principles only apply to others and not yourself?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Suppose this hypothetical terrorist doesn't respond to your torture, but he agrees to disarm the ticking time bomb if you agree to perform an unnatural and thoroughly humiliating act while his friends make a video of it to spread around the Internet? Would you agree to that? Or do your principles only apply to others and not yourself?

Nice!

Welcome aboard the JREFF Towlie.

 

[SezMe]

So why not just join me in demanding that Obama release whatever reports or data is needed to know whether the CIA told the truth or not when they claimed that enhanced methods worked, saved lives and prevented terrorists attacks that would not have been stopped otherwise? I'm curious why so many on your side of this issue refuse to do that ... either ignore my plea or post various lame excuses for Obama not doing it.

Because my joining (or not) you on this forum will have absolutely no effect in real life. So why bother?

Here's my shot at the mil: If the reports/data you are alluding to are released, they will not be conclusive. You will shout, "See!" and the other side will shout, "See!". People on both sides will refer to "other" reports or additional data that would substantiate their existing position. Spinmeisters on both sides will have a field day.

And nothing will get resolved. Your incessant call to release the reports/data is pissing upwind.

ETA:

ETA2: Here's a spot of evidence. Cheney say the reports support the effectiveness of torture. Leahy (I think that is the Senator) says they don't.

 

[BeAChooser]

Suppose this hypothetical terrorist doesn't respond to your torture, but he agrees to disarm the ticking time bomb if you agree to perform an unnatural and thoroughly humiliating act while his friends make a video of it to spread around the Internet? Would you agree to that? Or do your principles only apply to others and not yourself?

You answer my question first. Then I'll be glad to address yours. Or are your questions only an attempt to avoid answering the question I asked ... to avoid revealing whether you subscribe to the bogus notion of moral equivalence?

 

[tsig]

Has anyone mentioned the sheer fun factor of torturing terrorists?

There seems to be a lot of "retaliation thinking" among the torture advocates. It doesn't matter what info we get, the terrorists deserved the torture.

Torture becomes an end in itself not the means to obtain infomation.

 

[tsig]

I'll admit that it's torture AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. But definitions can change. Now will you admit that the other side in this war doesn't care one iota about your definition of torture other than to use it against our side so they can kill and main many more innocent people than they already have? You plan to fight this war with lawyers and the other side is laughing because they know from experience how foolish and TRULY ineffective that approach has been and will be in countering their terrorist activities.



No more than your side has evaded the issue of whether waterboarding is really effective or not. If you really were convinced of your position, I'm confident you'd be joining people like me in demanding that Obama release whatever documents are needed to prove whether the CIA management lied about the effectiveness of torture or the folks on your side of this debate. But you're content to just let the issue remain muddled and unresolved because you think you can win this debate through appeals to emotional arguments in the media.

Also, I've been told by many of the folks on your side of this debate that even if waterboarding were effective in eliciting vital information that might save thousands of live (when no other method would work in the time available), they'd still be against using it. They insist it's immoral. They apparently think it's just as evil to temporarily cause some pain or discomfort in one very bad person in an effort to save thousands of lives, as to knowingly let those thousands of lives perish simply because one is unwilling to cause even temporary pain and discomfort. Even if you are not one of these people, you are evading criticism of the bogus moral equivalency they postulate between these two very morally different acts.



So would I, but at this point in time only one man can resolve this issue. Obama. Multiple top people in the CIA and intelligence agencies are on the record (as was reported in those other threads you mentioned) stating that enhanced interrogation methods, particularly waterboarding, did elicit vital information that saved lives and defeated planned/ongoing terrorist plots, when conventional methods of eliciting such information had failed. Either they are lying or they are not. And the only way to know is for Obama to release the secret reports that detail the interrogations and how the information that was obtained panned out and saved lives. If Obama won't do this, I can only presume it's because those documents show exactly what the CIA maintained and he knows that release of the documents would only serve to discredit the leftists who form the core of his support base.



This is not a silly question at all because it shows the moral inconsistency of the anti-*waterboarding* side in this debate. And the definition of torture is all about perceptions of morality. Maybe the current definition is simply wrong because the people controlling that definition are infected by the same moral inconsistencies.



You are simply rehashing a discussion that already took place on those previous threads you mentioned. Either the CIA lied or they did not. The only way to know is for Obama to release the currently secret information needed to know one way or the other. If Obama won't do that, what is he hiding? I suggest something that he thinks will hurt him politically.

We really don't need all that info to prove that torture evidence is unreliable.

Unless you believe in witches.

 

[corplinx]

ETA2: Here's a spot of evidence. Cheney say the reports support the effectiveness of torture. Leahy (I think that is the Senator) says they don't.

Evidence of what? Neither is a trustworthy source. Cheney is a poster-board for tunnel-vision and Leahy is one of the emptiest suits in DC. He seems to only exist for partisan purposes. Anything else he attempts, results in him looking insane or retarded.

 

[tsig]

And the CIA maintains he immediately told them valuable intel that he'd withheld when subject to conventional interrogation methods.

If he told it to them immediately then why did they keep doing it?

 

[BeAChooser]

Because my joining (or not) you on this forum will have absolutely no effect in real life.

How do you know? A river starts with a single drop of water. Before long, if other drops join it, it can be force that is almost unstoppable, that can't be ignored. And even if your joining my call will have no effect, then what the harm can joining the call do? I think the truth is that really don't want to know whether waterboarding works because if you did, you would no longer be able to play your politically motivated games.

ETA2: Here's a spot of evidence. Cheney say the reports support the effectiveness of torture. Leahy (I think that is the Senator) says they don't.

So let's find out who is right. And we can use the *wisdom* of Leahy in that regard. Here's a direct quote from Patrick Leahy after he asked Judge Bybee (you know who that is?) to testify in front of his subcommittee about Bybee's "role" in drafting the torture memos, and Bybee refused to appear:

... the presumption in our civil law is that when a person fails to come forward with information in his possession that is relevant to a matter, it is presumed to be because the information is negative and not helpful to his cause.

So let's apply that logic to Obama now. He's the only one who can authorize the release of the reports and data that will resolve the issue of whether the CIA lied about waterboarding working or didn't lie. Since Obama is failing to do that, one can only presume it's because the conclusion of those reports is "not helpful to his cause."