Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[sunmaster14]

Have you considered the possibility that your "answers" aren't as convincing to others as they are to yourself?

I considered the possibility and then rejected it when a convincing rebuttal was not provided. Perhaps you have one?

 

[Border Reiver]

I considered the possibility and then rejected it when a convincing rebuttal was not provided. Perhaps you have one?

It's impossible to claim that you have the moral highground when you dive down into the filth when challenged.

 

[jimbob]

I know I have answered this point of yours before, and the fact that you continue to raise it means that you are particularly resistant to changing your mind, but I'll try one more time. It is pointless and therefore immoral to use torture to elicit confessions because if the confession cannot be verified, then the confession remains dubious, and if the confession can be verified, then it was unnecessary to obtain it. The fact that torture victims will "say anything" to stop the torture does not mean that what they say is worthless, as long as there is a mechanism by which to verify the information. Yes, people will utter falsehoods to stop the torture, but they will also say utter truths.

Did you answer this where it was used within the last 50-years and to try to obtain information?

Sunmaster, did you read what happened to the NVA when they tried using torture to uncover anti-communist infiltrators?

Not really an effective strategy.

Here's an article to help:

http://www.newsweek.com/cia-torture-report-vietcong-vietnam-war-292041

The CIA is hardly the only spy service to grapple with blowback from making prisoners scream. Even leaders of Communist Vietnam’s wartime intelligence agency, notorious for torturing American POWs, privately knew that “enhanced interrogation techniques,” as the CIA calls them, could create more problems than solutions, according to internal Vietnamese documents reviewed by Newsweek.

In many cases, torturing people wrongly suspected of being enemy spies caused “extremely regrettable losses and damage,” says one of the documents, released to little notice in 1993 by Hanoi’s all-powerful Public Security Service (PSS).

In another part, the report explains how the agency eventually began to arrest its own people, and before long, false confessions began destroying the PSS itself. “A reconnaissance team member who one day went out to arrest someone would suddenly be arrested the very next day,” the documents said. “An investigating officer who one day was sitting in his chair conducting interrogations would the next day be forced to stand in that same office to be interrogated himself.”

Even by the most amoral criteria - it fails.

In the 1980's I read a book about MKULTRA, "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate

It listed several attempts - mainly using non-physical torture to determine whether intelligence was good or deliberately misleading. They got the prisoners to admit to lying, but they also said whatever they thought the people wanted, which was useless, which means an argument for its use based on its efficacy is not that strong. There are plenty of other reasons why it should not be used even if it was effective - which I think is where you are coming from.

 

[Garrette]

--snipp--

I actually still advocate that torture be illegal. I'm just saying, as with civil disobedience in some cases, there are times when it is moral to break the law.

I doubt you mean this in this case. If so, you would not be defending the general practice but specific instances.

Let's use the ticking bomb scenario:

I have in my custody the person I strongly believe to be the only person who has the information that will make it possible to prevent a nuclear explosion, and this information must be used in the next five minutes or it will be useless and the explosion will take place.

Let's make it absolute: there are no other options. There is no one to call, no place to go, no codes to decipher. Further, I have irrefutable proof that the person in my custody is the one with the information, and I know with irrefutable certainty that anything short of brutal torture will be insufficient to obtain the needed information.

Would I torture the person? Very possibly. But what I would not do is later to expect leniency in the eyes of the law. Were I to commit this torture, I would later surrender myself to the court, admit my actions, and fully expect to lose my liberties because of them.

Anything less than the voluntary surrender of my liberties afterward -- which is what you are advocating -- belies your entire argument. If the information is important enough to obtain via torture, it is important enough to sacrifice my freedoms. If it is no important enough for me to sacrifice my freedoms, it is not important enough to obtain via torture.

This is where I see it falling completely apart for those who advocate as you do. The ticking time bomb scenario is a smokescreen. You talk solely about how you are justified in hurting others but never about the sacrifice you will make.

 

[sunmaster14]

I doubt you mean this in this case. If so, you would not be defending the general practice but specific instances.

Let's use the ticking bomb scenario:

I have in my custody the person I strongly believe to be the only person who has the information that will make it possible to prevent a nuclear explosion, and this information must be used in the next five minutes or it will be useless and the explosion will take place.

Let's make it absolute: there are no other options. There is no one to call, no place to go, no codes to decipher. Further, I have irrefutable proof that the person in my custody is the one with the information, and I know with irrefutable certainty that anything short of brutal torture will be insufficient to obtain the needed information.

Would I torture the person? Very possibly. But what I would not do is later to expect leniency in the eyes of the law. Were I to commit this torture, I would later surrender myself to the court, admit my actions, and fully expect to lose my liberties because of them.

Anything less than the voluntary surrender of my liberties afterward -- which is what you are advocating -- belies your entire argument. If the information is important enough to obtain via torture, it is important enough to sacrifice my freedoms. If it is no important enough for me to sacrifice my freedoms, it is not important enough to obtain via torture.

This is where I see it falling completely apart for those who advocate as you do. The ticking time bomb scenario is a smokescreen. You talk solely about how you are justified in hurting others but never about the sacrifice you will make.

No, I think your scenario is exactly how it should work. And if society (or the prosecutor or a jury) decides that I should not be punished (as I think they will), then I would not be punished. I did not torture any of the prisoners in the CIA program, nor do I know anybody who did, so I think I can be pretty objective about the whole thing. Were I on a jury deciding the torturer's fate, I would vote for acquittal (this is basically an example of jury nullification).

 

[sunmaster14]

It's impossible to claim that you have the moral highground when you dive down into the filth when challenged.

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

 

[Garrette]

No, I think your scenario is exactly how it should work. And if society (or the prosecutor or a jury) decides that I should not be punished (as I think they will), then I would not be punished. I did not torture any of the prisoners in the CIA program, nor do I know anybody who did, so I think I can be pretty objective about the whole thing. Were I on a jury deciding the torturer's fate, I would vote for acquittal (this is basically an example of jury nullification).

Then if you stop defending torture as a blanket program -- or clarify for me that that is not what you are doing -- then we will have less ground between us.

ETA: Of course, it will have little to no practical application as my hypothetical scenario has not pertained.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then if you stop defending torture as a blanket program -- or clarify for me that that is not what you are doing -- then we will have less ground between us.

Torture is clearly only a crime when you stop being the one in power. Then you see people charged with torture as if it was some great crime against humanity.

 

[sunmaster14]

Did you answer this where it was used within the last 50-years and to try to obtain information?

I would say this was an example of misusing the information which was obtained. It could happen regardless of the source of the information. In fact, I would think you're more likely to receive a coherent lie from a non-compromised suspect than a compromised one. It is actually very difficult to lie in a consistent way. It takes great mental energy. Much easier to tell the truth. There have been many psychological studies of this effect.

 

[sunmaster14]

Torture is clearly only a crime when you stop being the one in power. Then you see people charged with torture as if it was some great crime against humanity.

I protest this post on behalf of my newly formed group SLM (i.e. Strawman Lives Matter). You have only succeeded in attacking an unarmed strawman.

 

[Garrette]

I would say this was an example of misusing the information which was obtained. It could happen regardless of the source of the information. In fact, I would think you're more likely to receive a coherent lie from a non-compromised suspect than a compromised one. It is actually very difficult to lie in a consistent way. It takes great mental energy. Much easier to tell the truth. There have been many psychological studies of this effect.

And this is (a) the reason I think your defense of torture is broader than the ticking bomb scenario as you defend situations beyond it, and (b) why I think you're not as informed on this as you think, or at least not as unbiased as you think. Do the studies you say exist refer to trained and dedicated killers or simply to the general population? In the ticking bomb scenario we're talking a different mindset than the general populace and are, to follow your implications, talking about someone who has trained themselves up to believe a cover story, complete with coherent details.

 

[sunmaster14]

Then if you stop defending torture as a blanket program -- or clarify for me that that is not what you are doing -- then we will have less ground between us.

ETA: Of course, it will have little to no practical application as my hypothetical scenario has not pertained.

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.

 

[Garrette]

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.

Your defense doesn't quite match your claim. You mix moral and legal; there may, indeed, be a gray moral line, but a clear legal one must both be drawn and adhered to. Moreover, you continue to belie your stance with what you said earlier, i.e., that you hope a jury would see the full circumstance and acquit you. That is wanting a legal validation for a moral stance. All of which is not even addressing that you are crafting your scenarios not as hypothetical, last minute one-offs with definitive risks but rather as generic gray areas that allow lots of room for arbitrary decisions, all of which are okay by you.

 

[sunmaster14]

Your defense doesn't quite match your claim. You mix moral and legal; there may, indeed, be a gray moral line, but a clear legal one must both be drawn and adhered to. Moreover, you continue to belie your stance with what you said earlier, i.e., that you hope a jury would see the full circumstance and acquit you. That is wanting a legal validation for a moral stance. All of which is not even addressing that you are crafting your scenarios not as hypothetical, last minute one-offs with definitive risks but rather as generic gray areas that allow lots of room for arbitrary decisions, all of which are okay by you.

Jury nullification is part of the legal process, as are sentencing decisions by judges. But these are moral judgments, so the two are closely entangled. I do support the anti-torture laws, but recognize also that sometimes you have to break the law.

 

[Garrette]

Jury nullification is part of the legal process, as are sentencing decisions by judges. But these are moral judgments, so the two are closely entangled. I do support the anti-torture laws, but recognize also that sometimes you have to break the law.

Then I suggest that you be more careful in wording your responses as they do not usually convey this. Or perhaps it is just me. I only rarely pop in and out of the thread.

 

[jimbob]

I would say this was an example of misusing the information which was obtained. It could happen regardless of the source of the information. In fact, I would think you're more likely to receive a coherent lie from a non-compromised suspect than a compromised one. It is actually very difficult to lie in a consistent way. It takes great mental energy. Much easier to tell the truth. There have been many psychological studies of this effect.

People are notoriously bsd witnesses and are particularly bad at recall when under stress. If the person being slowly killed holds out for a little time then it's quite possible that they would not themselves know what the truth is.

 

[sunmaster14]

Then I suggest that you be more careful in wording your responses as they do not usually convey this. Or perhaps it is just me. I only rarely pop in and out of the thread.

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.

 

[sunmaster14]

People are notoriously bsd witnesses and are particularly bad at recall when under stress. If the person being slowly killed holds out for a little time then it's quite possible that they would not themselves know what the truth is.

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.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

 

[sunmaster14]

Just self respect and dignity.

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