• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll respond to your post specifically, but many here are misunderstanding the continuum argument. That argument runs as follows:

Suppose X quantifies the amount of discomfort or pain inflicted on a subject by an interrogator. Suppose T is the threshold for what constitutes torture, so that X >= T is considered torture, but X < T is not. Depending upon the circumstances, even inflicting X < T on a suspect can be immoral, and even criminal. For example, it would be immoral, at the very least, to interrogate an alleged shoplifter for 12 hours straight in order to find out about his accomplices, but it would not contravene the anti-torture statutes. However, in more serious circumstances, interrogation for 12 hours straight might be considered rather soft treatment (e.g. a murder suspect who is thought to have accomplices). As the need to extract information from a suspect increases, harsher and harsher methods of interrogation become morally acceptable. I would be surprised if anybody doubts this. The anti-torture statutes probably allow solitary confinement, disorientation with noise or light, moderate sleep deprivation, and dietary restrictions. If these were to be used in order to try to save one or more innocent people from imminent harm, most people would think that was fine. Now, if the stakes were raised, so that the information being sought would save dozens or hundreds of lives, doesn't it make sense to allow even harsher methods to be used? And if the stakes involved thousands of lives, and perhaps a much higher probability of success, wouldn't even harsher methods be acceptable?

The bottom line is that there is a moral calculus to be done, and if the benefit is larger, a higher cost to purchase that benefit should be acceptable. Now I don't really have an opinion on what exactly the moral indifference curve should look like, let alone be able to prove it, but I have no doubt that it is upward sloping (where the horizontal access is inflicted pain, and the vertical axis is expected - using the word in its mathematical sense - benefit).
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'll respond to your post specifically, but many here are misunderstanding the continuum argument. That argument runs as follows:

Suppose X quantifies the amount of discomfort or pain inflicted on a subject by an interrogator. Suppose T is the threshold for what constitutes torture, so that X >= T is considered torture, but X < T is not. Depending upon the circumstances, even inflicting X < T on a suspect can be immoral, and even criminal. For example, it would be immoral, at the very least, to interrogate an alleged shoplifter for 12 hours straight in order to find out about his accomplices, but it would not contravene the anti-torture statutes. However, in more serious circumstances, interrogation for 12 hours straight might be considered rather soft treatment (e.g. a murder suspect who is thought to have accomplices). As the need to extract information from a suspect increases, harsher and harsher methods of interrogation become morally acceptable. I would be surprised if anybody doubts this. The anti-torture statutes probably allow solitary confinement, disorientation with noise or light, moderate sleep deprivation, and dietary restrictions. If these were to be used in order to try to save one or more innocent people from imminent harm, most people would think that was fine. Now, if the stakes were raised, so that the information being sought would save dozens or hundreds of lives, doesn't it make sense to allow even harsher methods to be used? And if the stakes involved thousands of lives, and perhaps a much higher probability of success, wouldn't even harsher methods be acceptable?

The bottom line is that there is a moral calculus to be done, and if the benefit is larger, a higher cost to purchase that benefit should be acceptable. Now I don't really have an opinion on what exactly the moral indifference curve should look like, let alone be able to prove it, but I have no doubt that it is upward sloping (where the horizontal access is inflicted pain, and the vertical axis is expected - using the word in its mathematical sense - benefit).
Click to expand...
You are behaving as other posters who claim not to be understood when it is rather that you don't like the responses given. I understand what you are saying; I am certain most of the others who respond to you do, too. We simply do not accept it. As for me, I can accept something close enough to what you have written here as the beginnings of a stand-alone rough framework. The problem is that you then misapply this.

For one thing, your framework is missing a critical element, i.e., the efficacy of torture. This has been repeatedly pointed out, not only in general, but in the specifics about how the expert testimony undermines you. Cloak your hand-waving dismissals in long verbiage all you like, but they remain hand-waving dismissals.

For another, in the posts in which you talk about practical application of this framework you merely act as if you apply it when instead you apply an ideologically driven analytic inconsistently between groups.

There's more, but that will do for now.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'll respond to your post specifically, but many here are misunderstanding the continuum argument. That argument runs as follows:

Suppose X quantifies the amount of discomfort or pain inflicted on a subject by an interrogator. Suppose T is the threshold for what constitutes torture, so that X >= T is considered torture, but X < T is not. Depending upon the circumstances, even inflicting X < T on a suspect can be immoral, and even criminal. For example, it would be immoral, at the very least, to interrogate an alleged shoplifter for 12 hours straight in order to find out about his accomplices, but it would not contravene the anti-torture statutes. However, in more serious circumstances, interrogation for 12 hours straight might be considered rather soft treatment (e.g. a murder suspect who is thought to have accomplices). As the need to extract information from a suspect increases, harsher and harsher methods of interrogation become morally acceptable. I would be surprised if anybody doubts this. The anti-torture statutes probably allow solitary confinement, disorientation with noise or light, moderate sleep deprivation, and dietary restrictions. If these were to be used in order to try to save one or more innocent people from imminent harm, most people would think that was fine. Now, if the stakes were raised, so that the information being sought would save dozens or hundreds of lives, doesn't it make sense to allow even harsher methods to be used? And if the stakes involved thousands of lives, and perhaps a much higher probability of success, wouldn't even harsher methods be acceptable?

The bottom line is that there is a moral calculus to be done, and if the benefit is larger, a higher cost to purchase that benefit should be acceptable. Now I don't really have an opinion on what exactly the moral indifference curve should look like, let alone be able to prove it, but I have no doubt that it is upward sloping (where the horizontal access is inflicted pain, and the vertical axis is expected - using the word in its mathematical sense - benefit).
Click to expand...

The experts have told you that there is not a higher probability of success, certainly not a much higher probability.

Yes, X<T can be immoral. It does not follow then that X>T becomes moral.
 
Ok, well both of you I think are falling back on the convenient, but wholly unsupported, claim that torture doesn't "work" to avoid wrestling with difficult moral issues. This is exactly what I saw Upchurch and other moral absolutists do before. Now, maybe you're right that torture doesn't work (and by "doesn't work" you really have to mean "never works" because "working sometimes" means "working" from a rigorously mathematical perspective), and we never have to worry about being faced with an unpleasant moral dilemma. I don't think so, but maybe you're right. Regardless, your argument then is not that torture should be proscribed because it is immoral, but because it is ineffective.

Personally, I don't really want to have a discussion about whether or not torture works because I think it will be fruitless. For obvious reasons, there have been no systematic studies done, and all data available is anecdotal at best, and selectively interpreted by people with an agenda, at worst. I have made the argument that pain compliance methods work in all sorts of situations, on both humans and other animals, and that we can extrapolate from there that torture would work, but if you're not going to accept the validity of that argument, then that's as far as I can go.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Ok, well both of you I think are falling back on the convenient, but wholly unsupported, claim that torture doesn't "work" to avoid wrestling with difficult moral issues.
Click to expand...

This is false. The claim that torture doesn't work has been supported by citing experts in the field. Further, I am not falling back on it to avoid wrestling with difficult moral issues, but am pointing out that torture is flat out immoral. Full stop.

sunmaster14 said:
This is exactly what I saw Upchurch and other moral absolutists do before. Now, maybe you're right that torture doesn't work (and by "doesn't work" you really have to mean "never works" because "working sometimes" means "working" from a rigorously mathematical perspective), and we never have to worry about being faced with an unpleasant moral dilemma. I don't think so, but maybe you're right. Regardless, your argument then is not that torture should be proscribed because it is immoral, but because it is ineffective.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that it must be an either, or? You have not provided a reason to assume torture is effective, but you have also failed to argue that torture is moral.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Ok, well both of you I think are falling back on the convenient, but wholly unsupported, claim that torture doesn't "work" to avoid wrestling with difficult moral issues. This is exactly what I saw Upchurch and other moral absolutists do before. Now, maybe you're right that torture doesn't work (and by "doesn't work" you really have to mean "never works" because "working sometimes" means "working" from a rigorously mathematical perspective), and we never have to worry about being faced with an unpleasant moral dilemma. I don't think so, but maybe you're right. Regardless, your argument then is not that torture should be proscribed because it is immoral, but because it is ineffective.

Personally, I don't really want to have a discussion about whether or not torture works because I think it will be fruitless. For obvious reasons, there have been no systematic studies done, and all data available is anecdotal at best, and selectively interpreted by people with an agenda, at worst. I have made the argument that pain compliance methods work in all sorts of situations, on both humans and other animals, and that we can extrapolate from there that torture would work, but if you're not going to accept the validity of that argument, then that's as far as I can go.
Click to expand...
No and no. First, inefficacy is not required for my arguments; rather, efficacy is required for yours.

Second, you're still acting as if we do not understand. We do. You just don't like the responses.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Ok, well both of you I think are falling back on the convenient, but wholly unsupported, claim that torture doesn't "work" to avoid wrestling with difficult moral issues. This is exactly what I saw Upchurch and other moral absolutists do before.
Click to expand...
This is a straw man argument on multiple levels.

I have never said that torture doesn't work. My argument is that it doesn't work as well as other methods. It has nothing to do with wrestling with difficult moral issues because the evidence and morality point to the same conclusion.

And, for the hat trick, I am not a moral absolutist. I just don't agree with your begging the question by presupposing that torture is ever the only right answer to a particular problem.




sunmaster14 said:
I have made the argument supposition that pain compliance methods work in all sorts of situations, on both humans and other animals, and that we can extrapolate from there that torture would work, but if you're not going to accept the validity of that argument, then that's as far as I can go.
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
Garrette said:
"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.
Click to expand...

People died as a result of it.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No we don't, at least not legally.
Entire argument invalid.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States

The act of torture has been practiced by many countries, groups, govts., culturals, etc., all throughout history. The link above is a pretty good overview of torture of various types by various entities under the umbrella of the U.S. govt.

People agree/disagree with this topic as is typical with emotionally charged topics. We've been doing it for decades.

Below is the google search page with a bunch of vids, articles, etc. that shows CH getting waterboarded. The vids speak for themselves. To use the term 'waterboarding' is a euphemism for a specific type of torture. In other words, sugar coating ****. I'm not taking a stance as to whether I agree or disagree with WBing being done to those people is morally right or wrong.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=christopher+hitchens+waterboarding+video

I do take a stance that sometimes it is a necessary evil, especially in extremely dangerous times. For those who disagree, think of Jack Bauer in 24 Hours. Or better yet, imagine yourself in a situation where your wife, daughter, etc. is going to be killed if you or the police can't get to them in time. But suppose you were able to find one of the culprits and you had him alone in your basement with a pair of vice grips, a blowtorch, some nails and a hammer, what would you do?

Also, for all of us to be able to sit in front of computer screens doing what we are doing now is a result of people's blood that was shed in wars from the Revolutionary War up to current war(s) and the terrible horrifying things that happen in those situations. As the saying goes, 'War is hell' and all that that implies.

On a side note, I keep hearing, "It's been proven that torture is unreliable." I have to strongly disagree with that. I'm 65yrs. old and I had friends that fought in Vietnam and came back with horror stories of killing, mayhem and, yes, torture, that was, at times, very effective. As one of my friends said, "You ought to hear how loud and sweet a gook sings when you hook electrodes to his balls. Sooner or later you get the truth."

I know that if is was restrained with shackles and a blow torch and pliers came out, I would sing like a canary. But that's just me. Love it or hate it, it's there, and it will always be there. If torture isn't effective, why do people keep doing it? Is it for fun and profit in your spare time? Sometimes, yes, but obviously not all the time.
 
Appeal to Hollywood, appeal to emotion, appeal to false patriotism, and anecdotal evidence.

Aside from the Wikipedia article, you missed the mark on every turn.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...


You obviously attempted to prove that theory by surveying participants of this thread. The results of this particular experiment do not support your theory.

ETA: Also, are you expecting this to be a long-term change, or a short-term emotional reaction? If the latter, how does it support your argument in favor of torture?
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
For those who disagree, think of Jack Bauer in 24 Hours.
Click to expand...

You really can't be serious?! You know that's, erm, written by people, don't you? It's not an infomercial. It's fiction. Jack Bauer is successful because, and I don't know how to put his delicately, the same person is writing both sides of the encounter.
 
Last edited:
Garrette said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I bet in most police forces there are guidelines on how handcuffs are to be used and I further bet there is not one guideline that mentions to inflict pain or cause discomfort. They are by civilized police a method of restraint not a method of inflicting pain or punishment.
 
jakesteele said:
On a side note, I keep hearing, "It's been proven that torture is unreliable." I have to strongly disagree with that. I'm 65yrs. old and I had friends that fought in Vietnam and came back with horror stories of killing, mayhem and, yes, torture, that was, at times, very effective. As one of my friends said, "You ought to hear how loud and sweet a gook sings when you hook electrodes to his balls. Sooner or later you get the truth."
Click to expand...

Your friend is a racist war criminal.
 
Darat said:
And I bet in most police forces there are guidelines on how handcuffs are to be used and I further bet there is not one guideline that mentions to inflict pain or cause discomfort. They are by civilized police a method of restraint not a method of inflicting pain or punishment.
Click to expand...

It is unpleasant to be restrained. There is no question that many suspects are coerced into compliance by the threat of restraint, and that the police use this to achieve compliance. Regardless, I don't see how anybody can doubt that our whole system of laws is based on deterrence and the threat of punishment, and also that punishment clearly involves the application of discomfort. Torture is not qualitatively different. It is only a matter of degree. Also, the compliance being sought, i.e. revealing information, is not qualitatively different from the compliance being sought in other areas of the law, e.g. stop resisting arrest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom