Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Upchurch]

Actually, I am not arguing in favor of torture per se. I am arguing in favor of recognizing the mitigating circumstances for those accused of torture. It has always been my position that the virulence with which the Bush administration has been attacked for torturing the likes of KSM could only have been possible many years removed from the horror of 9/11 (and the associated fear of another attack). My main point is that most of the people who are so against torture now would have been in favor of it in 2002. One piece of evidence is that Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein were gung-ho for enhanced interrogation in 2002, and now they're some of the staunchest critics of the program.

All the more reason that decisions should not be based on emotion in the heat of the moment. And being upset or scared is no excuse for committing a crime.

My theory is that most people who were against torturing terrorists to get information a week ago are far more amenable to the idea today.

I've seen no evidence for this.

Meh, their discomfort with the moral issues colors their views of its efficacy. I don't trust them to give an honest assesment.

As you have provided no argument or evidence that their conclusions were biased by the "moral issues", your opinion can be safely rejected as immaterial.

You don't trust their assessment because you disagree with the conclusion. It's as simple as that.

Whereas,

Well, yes, that is my main point actually.

...you appear to have your own biases at play. Your opinion of torture seems to have less to do with torture itself and more about partisan loyalty.

 

[Border Reiver]

Actually, I am not arguing in favor of torture per se. I am arguing in favor of recognizing the mitigating circumstances for those accused of torture.

All persons accused of torture, or just government actors?

If the latter, US government actors, or all government actors?

Should there be additional mitigating factors applied for other deliberate and gross violations of civil rights, or just torture? Why or why not?

If you listen to any expert on the topic, be it experienced interrogator, neuroscientist, or even game theorist, they all agree that torture is your worst option for intelligence gathering. Even if morality were not a factor, there is no reason to choose to torture someone for intelligence over more effective and efficient options.

Meh, their discomfort with the moral issues colors their views of its efficacy. I don't trust them to give an honest assesment.

If you're not prepared to revise your position on the advice of actual experts you're not approaching this from a skeptical POV are you?

 

[sunmaster14]

All the more reason that decisions should not be based on emotion in the heat of the moment. And being upset or scared is no excuse for committing a crime.

Actually, it is. I do agree that we should put aside our emotions when making such decisions, but we should also take emotions into consideration when judging the actions of other people, since people are human, with all that that entails.

<snip>

...you appear to have your own biases at play. Your opinion of torture seems to have less to do with torture itself and more about partisan loyalty.

No, I am pretty sure it is not about partisan loyalty, but rather about empathy. I think I would defend a Democratic administration that did what the Bush administration did. Of course, I wouldn't have to in that case, because there would be virtually nobody calling for indictments for war crimes.

 

[sunmaster14]

All persons accused of torture, or just government actors?

If the latter, US government actors, or all government actors?

For the particular case at issue, i.e. the relatively mild torture of a handful of al Qaeda prisoners in the wake of 9/11.

Should there be additional mitigating factors applied for other deliberate and gross violations of civil rights, or just torture? Why or why not?

Mitigating circumstances can exist for any type of crime, and of course they should enter into the calculation of whether or not to prosecute, whether or not to convict, and what the sentence should be. This principle is nothing new. It is central to every system of justice throughout human history.

If you're not prepared to revise your position on the advice of actual experts you're not approaching this from a skeptical POV are you?

Remember that we've already had months' long discussions about the efficacy of torture in this thread and in the Condoleezza Rice thread (and probably a few others as well). I've addressed literally everything Upchurch or Jimbob or anybody else here has brought up, probably several times. The fact that torture would work on most people, I think, is patently obvious. I know it would work on me. In any case, it is not necessary for torture to work on all people in all circumstances. If it even has some non-zero probability of working when nothing else will, it can be an effective tool.

 

[Garrette]

For the particular case at issue, i.e. the relatively mild torture of a handful of al Qaeda prisoners in the wake of 9/11.

"Relatively" is a loaded word. The fact we did not cut off genitals or use spoons to scoop out eyeballs is not a lessening of the horrid nature of what was done.

Mitigating circumstances can exist for any type of crime, and of course they should enter into the calculation of whether or not to prosecute, whether or not to convict, and what the sentence should be. This principle is nothing new. It is central to every system of justice throughout human history.

To an extent, but you are asking for that assessment to be done selectively for the side you support and prior to entry into the legal system.

Remember that we've already had months' long discussions about the efficacy of torture in this thread and in the Condoleezza Rice thread (and probably a few others as well). I've addressed literally everything Upchurch or Jimbob or anybody else here has brought up, probably several times. The fact that torture would work on most people, I think, is patently obvious. I know it would work on me. In any case, it is not necessary for torture to work on all people in all circumstances. If it even has some non-zero probability of working when nothing else will, it can be an effective tool.

No. Despite the spottiness of my recent attendance here, I have read most of those responses in this thread and the other. You have replied to but not addressed most of those concerns. As you just did regarding the statements of relevant experts, you dismissed evidence counter to your narrative because you have personal feelings about what to you is the obviousness of torture's efficacy.

More to the broader point that you and I recently addressed, though, you are mixing the hypothetical with the reality. Your spectrum is being used as cover up front, not as an analytical tool after.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

No. Despite the spottiness of my recent attendance here, I have read most of those responses in this thread and the other. You have replied to but not addressed most of those concerns. As you just did regarding the statements of relevant experts, you dismissed evidence counter to your narrative because you have personal feelings about what to you is the obviousness of torture's efficacy.

More to the broader point that you and I recently addressed, though, you are mixing the hypothetical with the reality. Your spectrum is being used as cover up front, not as an analytical tool after.

I refer you back to this discussion:

I refer you back to our discussion in the Condoleezza Rice thread. I don't like to rehash old stuff. My views haven't changed since then, and I don't think I have anything to add.

Well, maybe this. If the physical punishment of a human being lies on a continuum (ranging from restraint in handcuffs on one end to the most grisly torture at the other end), then if some level of punishment can be justified by a social goal, it seems possible to show that a more important social goal would justify at least a slightly harsher level of punishment. I think that as long as there is no cap on the social utility that could be gained from a punishment, one could theoretically find a scenario which justifies any level of physical punishment. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, and as anglolawyer pointed out here, our society uses physical punishment routinely to affect human behavior. In fact, all of our laws, ultimately, are backed by the threat of physical punishment.

So, if restraint in handcuffs is justified in some circumstances, perhaps tugging on them to cause a little bit of pain compliance is justified in more extreme circumstances. Or tasering. Or putting someone in an armbar. Or punching them in the face. And on and on. I think a civilized society would not inflict pain gratuitously, but rather only to enforce compliance. Does such compliance include divulging information which could potentially save innocent lives? Maybe.

Point being, we use the infliction of pain and suffering, or its threat, in many ways to force compliance with the law because it works. There is no reason to believe there is some magic threshold at which the infliction of pain no longer works to force compliance with a demand. It is even less plausible that such a threshold should align with the arbitrary one that lawmakers have deemed to separate torture from acceptable treatment.

 

[Garrette]

I refer you back to this discussion:



Point being, we use the infliction of pain and suffering, or its threat, in many ways to force compliance with the law because it works. There is no reason to believe there is some magic threshold at which the infliction of pain no longer works to force compliance with a demand. It is even less plausible that such a threshold should align with the arbitrary one that lawmakers have deemed to separate torture from acceptable treatment.

And this is false equivocation. I do not accept your premise that handcuffs are the same as the infliction of pain. Nor do I accept your repeated and unfounded rejection of the experience of experts.

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, it is.

Not when there is no immediate threat, there isn't. And prisoners in custody are not an immediate threat.

I do agree that we should put aside our emotions when making such decisions, but we should also take emotions into consideration when judging the actions of other people, since people are human, with all that that entails.

Perhaps, then, we should take the emotions of terrorists into account when judging their acts of violence as well?

No, I am pretty sure it is not about partisan loyalty, but rather about empathy. I think I would defend a Democratic administration that did what the Bush administration did.

I am highly skeptical of this claim. You seem to reserve this empathy only for people who agree with a certain partisan narrative. No empathy is being spared for those being tortured, innocent or guilty.

I've seen you blame Obama for all sorts of things, including things that are, by any objective measure, incredibly successful. No empathy there either.

 

[wareyin]

I refer you back to this discussion:



Point being, we use the infliction of pain and suffering, or its threat, in many ways to force compliance with the law because it works. There is no reason to believe there is some magic threshold at which the infliction of pain no longer works to force compliance with a demand. It is even less plausible that such a threshold should align with the arbitrary one that lawmakers have deemed to separate torture from acceptable treatment.

This seems to ignore the reality that police using the infliction of pain and suffering to force compliance with the law is in violation of the law, and often (but sadly not always, or even the majority of the time) results in the police officer being charged with police brutality.

One simply cannot simply break the law in an attempt to enforce the law, if one wishes to be legal or moral.

 

[Upchurch]

I've addressed literally everything Upchurch or Jimbob or anybody else here has brought up, probably several times.

Addressed is not the same thing as having successfully countered. You haven't. Often, you merely hand-waved things away, like you did just now, as "biased" when there was no indication that it was so. Except, perhaps, that you disagreed with the sources' conclusions.

The fact that torture would work on most people, I think, is patently obvious.

It is not. It's your assumption.

If it even has some non-zero probability of working when nothing else will, it can be an effective tool.

Another assumption.

 

[sunmaster14]

And this is false equivocation. I do not accept your premise that handcuffs are the same as the infliction of pain. Nor do I accept your repeated and unfounded rejection of the experience of experts.

Weird. I think being in handcuffs would be quite unpleasant, especially if it was for several hours. I have no doubt that hundreds or even thousands of times per day, police enforce compliance with a directive by threatening a suspect with handcuffing. Or tasering. Or pepper spraying. The threat works very often, and it only works because those things cause pain.

As for the expert "evidence," I'll just note that I have read almost everything that has been posted in these threads, and the assertions by the experts have, without exception, simply consisted of unsupported opinions. I'll note also that there is a selection bias in publicly available sources. I can't imagine very many experts wanting to go on the record to claim that torture works. Far more, no doubt, would love to go on the record to justify their unwillingness to face a morally difficult problem by simply providing the convenient excuse that "it doesn't work anyway."

 

[sunmaster14]

This seems to ignore the reality that police using the infliction of pain and suffering to force compliance with the law is in violation of the law, and often (but sadly not always, or even the majority of the time) results in the police officer being charged with police brutality.

One simply cannot simply break the law in an attempt to enforce the law, if one wishes to be legal or moral.

"Put your hands up right now, or I will shoot you!" Is that against the law for a police officer to say?

"Tell me where the bomb is right now, or I will shoot you!" Is that against the law for an interrogator to say?

Remember, even if a threat counts as torture under the law because it causes psychological pain.

 

[Upchurch]

As for the expert "evidence," I'll just note that I have read almost everything that has been posted in these threads, and the assertions by the experts have, without exception, simply consisted of unsupported opinions.

 

[Border Reiver]

For the particular case at issue, i.e. the relatively mild torture of a handful of al Qaeda prisoners in the wake of 9/11.

This did not answer the question.

My questions were:

"All persons accused of torture, or just government actors?

If the latter, US government actors, or all government actors?

Should there be additional mitigating factors applied for other deliberate and gross violations of civil rights, or just torture? Why or why not?"

Now you did provide a response to the highlighted question.

Mitigating circumstances can exist for any type of crime, and of course they should enter into the calculation of whether or not to prosecute, whether or not to convict, and what the sentence should be. This principle is nothing new. It is central to every system of justice throughout human history.

Now, where in the criminal justice process should these Mitigating cricumstances (we were afraid, I thought he was a terrorist, I was only following orders, etc) be used?

Not in the decision to prosecute - as doing so would have of prejudging the issue.

Not in determining guilt or non-guilt - unless the law is changed to permit torture, the circumstances you've outlined in previous posts do not allow a person to argue that these acts do not contravene a number of statutes. Necessity doesn't fly - that particular legal defence does not excuse the stealing of a loaf of bread to feed a starving person. Niether does "I was only following orders" work - it didn't at Nuremburg or Tokyo and isn't valid at the Hague either.

Perhaps in sentencing - but really, the actor doing the torture choose to act in a manner contrary to law - this generally goes harder for the convict.

Remember that we've already had months' long discussions about the efficacy of torture in this thread and in the Condoleezza Rice thread (and probably a few others as well). I've addressed literally everything Upchurch or Jimbob or anybody else here has brought up, probably several times. The fact that torture would work on most people, I think, is patently obvious. I know it would work on me. In any case, it is not necessary for torture to work on all people in all circumstances. If it even has some non-zero probability of working when nothing else will, it can be an effective tool.

You don't get to hand wave away expert evidence because your opposing belief is "patently obvious." Present your experts that indicate that torture is an effective interrogation tool. We'll wait.

 

[Border Reiver]

"Put your hands up right now, or I will shoot you!" Is that against the law for a police officer to say?

Yes. Police officers are allowed to use lethal force to protect their lives or the lives of others. Ther circumstances above do not indicated that either situation is the case, so if the LEO shoots, he or she has used excessive force.

"Tell me where the bomb is right now, or I will shoot you!" Is that against the law for an interrogator to say?

Yes. Judicial execution requires a verdict from a court of law, which the interogator is not. Extra-judicial killings are murder.

The prisoner in the above case also should realize that this is a hollow threat - if the interrogator follows through with the threat, the suspect cannot disclose any further information. either way, it tells the suspect that the interrogator is stupid. Especially valid if the suspect does not actually know where the bomb is.

 

[Garrette]

Weird. I think being in handcuffs would be quite unpleasant, especially if it was for several hours. I have no doubt that hundreds or even thousands of times per day, police enforce compliance with a directive by threatening a suspect with handcuffing. Or tasering. Or pepper spraying. The threat works very often, and it only works because those things cause pain.

As for the expert "evidence," I'll just note that I have read almost everything that has been posted in these threads, and the assertions by the experts have, without exception, simply consisted of unsupported opinions. I'll note also that there is a selection bias in publicly available sources. I can't imagine very many experts wanting to go on the record to claim that torture works. Far more, no doubt, would love to go on the record to justify their unwillingness to face a morally difficult problem by simply providing the convenient excuse that "it doesn't work anyway."

You are still arguing strictly from your perceptions and not evidence, not to mention you are not applying your thoughts consistently to all groups.

Arguing that the unpleasantness of wearing handcuffs is used to elicit information indicates little except your willingness to blur lines to the point of uselessness. Ditto to placing handcuffs on your spectrum of torture. You should go whole hog and say that the intent to arrest a suspect, even before the police know who it is, is on the spectrum of torture.

 

[wareyin]

"Put your hands up right now, or I will shoot you!" Is that against the law for a police officer to say?

"Tell me where the bomb is right now, or I will shoot you!" Is that against the law for an interrogator to say?

Remember, even if a threat counts as torture under the law because it causes psychological pain.

This, combined with your continuity argument, seems to be the equivalent of claiming that since color is a spectrum, and there is no bright line dividing red from blue, therefore red is blue. Torturing a subject who is accused of being a terrorist is clearly not the same as your examples here, which are still not legal.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why are we even still having this conversation, if not to attempt to rationalize the crimes of the Bush Administration?

Because some Conservatives get their information about the usefulness of torture from fiction.

 

[Wudang]

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.

There are at least 3 definitions of "sunset": civil, naval, and astronomical. I can still tell night from day.

 

[sunmaster14]

There are at least 3 definitions of "sunset": civil, naval, and astronomical. I can still tell night from day.

But apparently you can't tell sunset from twilight.