Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Fudbucker]

If "enhanced interrogation" doesn't work, why did the CIA ever go down that road? One would think they would pursue evidence-based practices. Did they think it would work, and only now are we realizing it didn't?

 

[I Am The Scum]

If "enhanced interrogation" doesn't work, why did the CIA ever go down that road? One would think they would pursue evidence-based practices. Did they think it would work, and only now are we realizing it didn't?

I'm inclined to chalk it up to good old-fashioned incompetence, but given the prevalence of weird butt stuff, I'm willing to believe they have a handful of psychopathic rapists on staff.

 

[Upchurch]

In reading the wiki page on this project, it seems the government was reasonably logical and systematic about the whole thing. Admittedly, it probably went on longer and cost more money that it should have, but that's kind of par for the course:


ETA: Also, don't conflate evidence with proof.

My point still stands. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy for a reason.

 

[Fudbucker]

Just follow the army field manual on interrogation. There is no need for all of this hand wringing. We actually know how to obtain information. Before the CIA introduced torture we were successful at getting information. Ali Soufan, the man instrumental in getting actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah testified that once the CIA started torturing Zubayda he shut up. Soufan cannot even tell you the purpose of the torture as it had nothing to do with getting accurate information.

Those of us on this side of the debate will continue to ask for evidence to support the use of torture. Those on that side of the debate will continue to make claims without evidence that torture A.) works. B.) Is even necessary.

Good point.

 

[Fudbucker]

My point still stands. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy for a reason.

It's only a fallacy if you appeal to an authority whose area of expertise isn't relevant.

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm inclined to chalk it up to good old-fashioned incompetence, but given the prevalence of weird butt stuff, I'm willing to believe they have a handful of psychopathic rapists on staff.

They had some imaginative people. Doesn't the CIA screen for that though? I can't imagine it's an easy orgnization to join.

 

[Upchurch]

It's only a fallacy if you appeal to an authority whose area of expertise isn't relevant.

Exactly. My point still stands.

 

[The Norseman]

Having been subjected to polygraph tests many times in my life, I'm of the opinion that various government agencies use it as an employee screening tool not because they believe it works, but because they believe that most potential employees believe it works, and it encourages them to be more forthcoming about uncomfortable and embarrassing things in their past (it worked for me, at any rate).

It didn't work for the one time I was subjected to the poly. I was fully honest but they claimed I told lies in order to trick me into disclosing "more". It was only after that that I decided to read up on it and learned a great deal about it. After that, I was fully appreciative of the irony that polygraphers lie in order to get you to tell the truth.

That said, your point about government institutions clinging to scientifically unsound practices is well-taken.

Thank you.

 

[The Norseman]

It's only a fallacy if you appeal to an authority whose area of expertise isn't relevant.

It's a fallacy when, in essence, it's said that we should believe what they say because they are talking about areas of their expertise rather than relying on the evidence. At least, that's my understanding of the fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

They had some imaginative people. Doesn't the CIA screen for that though?

I'm not an authority. The following is simply my understanding of the current science.

Psychopathy is not well understood by the general public. We often conflate pathologies under the banner of psychotic. Psychopathy isn't psychotic. It's not like schizophrenia. While psycopathy is generally seen as a potentially maladaptive disorder there is evidence that for some percentage of the population it is an evolved, selected set of traits and represents an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (it should be noted that this remains somewhat controversial in the field of mind sciences).

Psychopaths are often high functioning. They see the world in much the same way the rest of us do. They are rational in that they understand the rules of society and so they know intellectually the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Psychopaths with above average IQ's are often gifted tacticians and make good leaders in both business and politics. Most psychopaths are not violent and most violent people are not psychopaths.

Psychopaths often exhibit a higher sensitivity to theory of mind. Psychopaths are often alpha types and charismatic. The truth is that psychopaths actually have abilities that are favored by the military and law enforcement agencies. They are less likely to be stressed due to the trauma of others. They are far less likely to be impeded by moral dilemma (see the crying baby dilemma).

AIU, what what is being screened for is not amoral perceptions but the potential for violence or sadism. The problem is that psychopaths are more likely to acquire a penchant for sadism if the rules of appropriate behavior are not well defined or if such behavior is encouraged. It should also be noted that psychopathy is not a necessary component of sadism. Further, a person need not derive pleasure from sadistic actions to be sadistic.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." --Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think this argument about "does it work/doesn't it work" is using the same idea of the role of torture on both sides. The one side seems to have an idea that torture is going to be used to extract specific information - like someone's pin code or where the bomb is hidden. Others would say it's just one piece of the larger picture, a link in a chain meant to develop intelligence generally. In this view, saying we could have got the info in another way is always true - a case is built up from many elements, no one of which is the "smoking gun." Any of them could be missing and it is quite possible the information would be found. This puts torture in a more minor, adjunct role, instead of the star of the show.

The latter view would have torture as a useful tool, even if it didn't "get the goods" in a clear an unambiguous manner. It might not even reveal any specific fact and still have a use as evidence that some suite of facts is true in a cumulative fashion.

It could also have a role as a threat. If information is given to avoid torture, no torture happens - does the torture get credit or not?

The general mechanism is valid, or seems so. "Tell us about X, or Y will happen." That's a common enough pattern. We see it in cop interrogations all the time - sometimes implied, sometimes stated outright: "The judge will go easier on you if you come clean now, before we get the DNA tests back."

The root issue about whether it works or not then has to do with what we take "works" to mean. As usual, it comes down to expectations and metrics. With two different operative definitions, both sides of the issue can be correct.

The threat is stronger than the execution, as the saying goes in chess. But since you mention the threat, there is the wider question of how much the ranks of the opposition have been swelled by the practise of torture. It may be news to (some of) us that the west has been torturing innocent people but maybe some of those joining the jihadis are doing so because of it. That needs to go in the debit column.

 

[fishbob]

My evidence is not just that the CIA claims torture actually produced useful intel in this case, but also that very experienced people at the CIA believed that it would before the program even started (hence the push to get the proper authorization). The CIA had had decades of institutional experience with this stuff. They had done all kinds of experiments and tests, most of which have never seen the light of day. . . . . . . . . . . .

At Area 51? With the Bigfoot and alien autopsies?

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm not an authority. The following is simply my understanding of the current science.

Psychopathy is not well understood by the general public. We often conflate pathologies under the banner of psychotic. Psychopathy isn't psychotic. It's not like schizophrenia. While psycopathy is generally seen as a potentially maladaptive disorder there is evidence that for some percentage of the population it is an evolved, selected set of traits and represents an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (it should be noted that this remains somewhat controversial in the field of mind sciences).

Psychopaths are often high functioning. They see the world in much the same way the rest of us do. They are rational in that they understand the rules of society and so they know intellectually the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Psychopaths with above average IQ's are often gifted tacticians and make good leaders in both business and politics. Most psychopaths are not violent and most violent people are not psychopaths.

Psychopaths often exhibit a higher sensitivity to theory of mind. Psychopaths are often alpha types and charismatic. The truth is that psychopaths actually have abilities that are favored by the military and law enforcement agencies. They are less likely to be stressed due to the trauma of others. They are far less likely to be impeded by moral dilemma (see the crying baby dilemma).

AIU, what what is being screened for is not amoral perceptions but the potential for violence or sadism. The problem is that psychopaths are more likely to acquire a penchant for sadism if the rules of appropriate behavior are not well defined or if such behavior is encouraged. It should also be noted that psychopathy is not a necessary component of sadism. Further, a person need not derive pleasure from sadistic actions to be sadistic.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." --Friedrich Nietzsche

Is that likely though? A bunch of psychopaths setting CIA policy? I think it more likely they actually believed they could get better intel by water-boarding people. The line of thinking is simple enough: torture someone enough and they'll tell you what you want to know. If you try to do it the "nice way", they'll hold out on you. And then you have the whole "they're not like us" thing going on, cause Radical Islam!!!

Whatever the cause, Mccain is right- we shouldn't torture and anyone who thinks waterboarding isn't torture needs to water Christopher Hitches being waterboarded. I would start babbling as soon as I saw the water and the towel.

 

[Fudbucker]

The threat is stronger than the execution, as the saying goes in chess. But since you mention the threat, there is the wider question of how much the ranks of the opposition have been swelled by the practise of torture. It may be news to (some of) us that the west has been torturing innocent people but maybe some of those joining the jihadis are doing so because of it. That needs to go in the debit column.

Yeah, I think the die-hards are going to to do what they're going to do, no matter what we do. But when we torture, we make it that much easier for the nut-jobs to justify joining groups like ISIS.

 

[RandFan]

A bunch of psychopaths setting CIA policy?

I suspect my point was lost. I'll try harder next time.

 

[Fudbucker]

I suspect my point was lost. I'll try harder next time.

Maybe, but I think my explanation is the likelier one.

ETA: There's evidence for both viewpoints:

"Clinical psychologist Roy Eidelson, who studies conflict, said all humans are susceptible to violent impulses and a desire for revenge, particularly when the adversary is publicly dehumanized, which was the case after the 9/11 attacks. “You’re not talking about people at that point. It becomes easier to torture. The natural human resistance to such activities diminishes and I’m confident that’s part of what happened,” Eidelson said in a telephone interview, adding that it only becomes easier for a person to continue torturing over time. “The first panicked screams of someone who’s being waterboarded are more stunning to the abuser when they hear it for the first time than when they’ve heard it for the tenth, twentieth or hundredth time. We tend to lose our sensitivity that way.”


"“My guess is that some people at the CIA believe that some form of torture or enhanced interrogation does work — that it has produced actionable intelligence,” Evan Thomas, a journalist and author of a book on the CIA’s early days, wrote in an email to International Business Times."

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-cia-...n-techniques-didnt-work-senate-report-1746718

I suspect it was a combination of the two: the misguided belief that torture would lead to more intel combined with the desire for revenge and dehumanization of the people we captured.

 

[RandFan]

There's evidence for both viewpoints:

If one squints and tilts one head. Otherwise, no. There is no evidence to support your claim.

 

[Tony Stark]

Rachel Maddow shows details from the Senate torture report indicating that the CIA, lacking a torture program, employed people who were unqualified, inexperienced, or of dubious character to manage an interrogation program that resulted in chaos.

 

[Cleon]

Rachel Maddow shows details from the Senate torture report indicating that the CIA, lacking a torture program, employed people who were unqualified, inexperienced, or of dubious character to manage an interrogation program that resulted in chaos.

(bolding mine)

Well, yes, to want to enter the torture field, even as a beginner, you kind of have to be a **** person. It's not really the line of work that your average humanitarian goes into.

 

[Tony Stark]

(bolding mine)

Well, yes, to want to enter the torture field, even as a beginner, you kind of have to be a **** person. It's not really the line of work that your average humanitarian goes into.

You're correct of course.

In case you didn't watch the video, Maddow points out that there were concerns within the CIA about the individual in charge of the torture prison in Afghanistan even before he started his assignment there.

The Senate report says:

...other CIA officers recommended [CIA OFFICER 1] not have continued access to classified information due to a "lack of honesty, judgement, and maturity"

He was also completely inexperienced with conducting interrogations. I'm not sure if he was the only person willing to do it or what.