Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[anglolawyer]

While I nearly always gain a valuably different perspective from your posts, I think that you usually go too far in your America-is-Now-Bad posts. That being said, this is an excellent post.

Thank you. The funny thing is I don't think America is bad. I just want to deconstruct the whole overlay of moral bull **** that obscures what's going on. In a nutshell: geo-politics is a very dirty sport, also extremely complicated, far too much so for the people to follow so they (we, actually as I'm no more in the know than the next guy) must be fed a line and it's mostly this line that freaks me out. France is a cheese eating surrender monkey one week and Amerca's oldest ally the next, Assad is worse than Hitler this week but last week he was an amiable dinner partner for John Kerry and wife etc etc etc

 

[Garrette]

Thank you. The funny thing is I don't think America is bad. I just want to deconstruct the whole overlay of moral bull **** that obscures what's going on. In a nutshell: geo-politics is a very dirty sport, also extremely complicated, far too much so for the people to follow so they (we, actually as I'm no more in the know than the next guy) must be fed a line and it's mostly this line that freaks me out. France is a cheese eating surrender monkey one week and Amerca's oldest ally the next, Assad is worse than Hitler this week but last week he was an amiable dinner partner for John Kerry and wife etc etc etc

I follow, though I'm not sure I totally agree. I make allowance for realpolitik, so changing alliances and characterizations do not bother me merely because they happen. The reasons, manner, and results of them matter, of course.

France is an issue for me, too; by that I mean that my friends' and colleagues' perceptions of France both frustrate and bemuse me. They have never deserved the "surrender monkey" moniker (I'm not saying you used it; my friends have), and one of the things I admire most about them is what my friends dislike: they do their own thing and damn international perception. In short, they act as my friends wish we would always act.

 

[sunmaster14]

WW2 is not a case in point. Only one side was engaged in genocide and armed conquest. Carpet bombing their cities was not great but it was at least underpinned by some strategic thinking, plus they started it.

Well, that's quite a concession. Not exactly carpet bombing, though. We weren't capable of it back then. We did figure out how to fire-bomb cities which had a lot of wooden structures. And of course there's that whole atomic bombing thing. And who exactly are the "they" who started it? Did children in Germany or Japan start the war? And was the Soviet Army justified in raping the **** out of virtually every German female over the age of 10 in the areas they occupied? Apparently so, because few non-Germans cared back then, and few care today. After all, "they" started it.

The US used to be good. Now it isn't anymore. Maybe this is inevitable but at least let's not pretend.

This is nonsense. Either we're good today, or we've never been good, because we're better than we've ever been, present feckless leadership notwithstanding, of course.

 

[Garrette]

The US used to be good. Now it isn't anymore. Maybe this is inevitable but at least let's not pretend.

This is nonsense. Either we're good today, or we've never been good, because we're better than we've ever been, present feckless leadership notwithstanding, of course.

Both are simplistic, but yours more egregiously so. There are too many independent aspects to say the US is good or the US is bad. anglolawyer, at least, is making it plain he is speaking in an overall sense considering the balance of things. Yours, however, does not follow. It is certainly possible to be something other than "Good Now or Never Good at All." Your claim that the US is better now than it ever was requires at least as much support as anglolawyer's claim to the contrary, and the report in this thread is evidence in anglolawyer's favor, so he's ahead on points.

 

[commandlinegamer]

That man is a disgrace. He should have never been in a position of power.

Only thing surprises me is he hasn't been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, that's quite a concession. Not exactly carpet bombing, though. We weren't capable of it back then. We did figure out how to fire-bomb cities which had a lot of wooden structures. And of course there's that whole atomic bombing thing. And who exactly are the "they" who started it? Did children in Germany or Japan start the war? And was the Soviet Army justified in raping the **** out of virtually every German female over the age of 10 in the areas they occupied? Apparently so, because few non-Germans cared back then, and few care today. After all, "they" started it.

I'm aware of all this but nonetheless.

This is nonsense. Either we're good today, or we've never been good, because we're better than we've ever been, present feckless leadership notwithstanding, of course.

Back to the topic, what do you think are the possible future consequences e.g. for America's moral authority, should it fail to hold to account the architects of the 'enhanced interrogation' programme?

 

[sunmaster14]

Both are simplistic, but yours more egregiously so. There are too many independent aspects to say the US is good or the US is bad. anglolawyer, at least, is making it plain he is speaking in an overall sense considering the balance of things. Yours, however, does not follow. It is certainly possible to be something other than "Good Now or Never Good at All." Your claim that the US is better now than it ever was requires at least as much support as anglolawyer's claim to the contrary, and the report in this thread is evidence in anglolawyer's favor, so he's ahead on points.

Pick a time period when the US has been "better."

 

[commandlinegamer]

If torture were effective, it's not, it would still be immoral but perhaps justifiable in some extreme circumstances. The thing is that it's not effective so we don't even need to have that discussion.

Does torture work?

Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent with considerable experience interrogating al-Qaeda operatives, pointed out in Time that: When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless.

He isn't alone in this assessment – a number of former intelligence people have expressed similar views, and his words are echoed by the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation, which suggests that: …the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

That's not really new thinking though: maybe it was just conveniently forgotten after 9/11?

FWIW, I think it's really easy to justify torture in a ticking bomb scenario, if there's a chance you might get useful information, but how low do you set the bar to gathering information that way in other circumstances?

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm aware of all this but nonetheless.




Back to the topic, what do you think are the possible future consequences e.g. for America's moral authority, should it fail to hold to account the architects of the 'enhanced interrogation' programme?

Zilch, zippo, nada, diddly-squat, or maybe naught. In part because on the geopolitical stage, moral authority counts for diddly-squat. If it did, it wouldn't matter. Memories are short for stuff like this. Same is true for defaulting on debt. A couple of years later, and investors are clamoring for more.

 

[jaydeehess]

Only thing surprises me is he hasn't been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

In a "War is Peace" context though, right?

 

[sunmaster14]

All you did then was present a dire "ticking time bomb" situation with an appeal to emotion. The solution to a ticking time bomb situation is to be able to get reliable information and quickly. Your old stuff neither demonstrates that torture results in reliable information or that it results in quickly getting reliable information.

So, you are not going to back your claim then. As Hitchens said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

I dismiss your claim.

You completely ignored the rest of my post where I made what I thought was a cogent argument. If you didn't understand it, I can try writing it more slowly.

 

[Garrette]

Pick a time period when the US has been "better."

Ah. Going to ignore the bit about independent aspects, I see.

No matter since it works in my favor. November 2nd, 1956.

 

[anglolawyer]

Zilch, zippo, nada, diddly-squat, or maybe naught. In part because on the geopolitical stage, moral authority counts for diddly-squat. If it did, it wouldn't matter. Memories are short for stuff like this. Same is true for defaulting on debt. A couple of years later, and investors are clamoring for more.

I disagree. International law matters although it's not always obvious how much. I'll give a related example - if the U.S-led assault on Iraq had not been launched on such a false prospectus and had not been so ********** up, the U.S. probably would not have encountered opposition in launching strikes against Syria.

The U.S. is obligated by treaty not to torture captives. It can hardly expect to hold others to their treaty obligations if it flouts its own. You are coming across as much more of a head banger than I previously thought.

 

[sunmaster14]

If torture were effective, it's not, it would still be immoral but perhaps justifiable in some extreme circumstances. The thing is that it's not effective so we don't even need to have that discussion.

This is a completely unsupported assertion, as I've explained here before.

Does torture work?

Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent with considerable experience interrogating al-Qaeda operatives, pointed out in Time that: When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless.

His argument is self-refuting. If they will say anything, why not the truth? Getting 100 lies plus 1 truth is better than nothing. This follows from logic and option theory.

He isn't alone in this assessment – a number of former intelligence people have expressed similar views, and his words are echoed by the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation, which suggests that: …the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

The interrogators who believe torture works are not the ones talking to the press. The interrogators who don't want to torture (and that's certainly understandable) are conflicted. They would like everyone to believe that torture doesn't work, including themselves. Otherwise, they may find themselves in a moral quandary.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is a completely unsupported assertion, as I've explained here before.



His argument is self-refuting. If they will say anything, why not the truth? Getting 100 lies plus 1 truth is better than nothing. This follows from logic and option theory.

Which means you have a fantastic mix of true and untrue with the knowledge that untrue is to be expected as the default from prisoners who either hate you or, if they did not start off that way, do now.

 

[sunmaster14]

Ah. Going to ignore the bit about independent aspects, I see.

No matter since it works in my favor. November 2nd, 1956.

One day? Well, let's see what was going on. Four days before the Presidential election. Two days before the Soviets invaded Hungary and killed thousands of civilians while we stood by and did nothing. Right in the middle of the Suez Crisis where we sided with a 3rd world dictator over our two best allies, and one future ally. I guess all in all, we probably didn't do anything that bad on that day. Of course, yesterday was a pretty good day tooy. Or perhaps that's just the media covering for Barack Obama again.

 

[jaydeehess]

The interrogators who believe torture works are not the ones talking to the press. The interrogators who don't want to torture (and that's certainly understandable) are conflicted. They would like everyone to believe that torture doesn't work, including themselves. Otherwise, they may find themselves in a moral quandary.

Is that from a knowledgeable source or did you come up with that yourself?

Do those who say torture DID produce actionable info have a comprehensive list of when it worked and if so then why did they not tell the inquiry?

 

[sunmaster14]

I disagree. International law matters although it's not always obvious how much. I'll give a related example - if the U.S-led assault on Iraq had not been launched on such a false prospectus and had not been so ********** up, the U.S. probably would not have encountered opposition in launching strikes against Syria.

The U.S. is obligated by treaty not to torture captives. It can hardly expect to hold others to their treaty obligations if it flouts its own. You are coming across as much more of a head banger than I previously thought.

Ironically, the invasion of Iraq was fully consistent with international law. In any case, international law has always been something that applied only to little guys. It has never had any force for the big powers (note the veto power in the Security Council). Russia's actions in Ukraine provide a nice example. The way to hold other countries to their treaty obligations is to impose economic or military sanctions for breaches. Moral suasion doesn't work in geopolitics. It's all barter at that level.

 

[RandFan]

The evidence that torture works is that no one will come forward and admit that it works. Thank about it, why would anyone admit that torture works? Ergo. Torture is not only effective it is necessary.

Hello, my name is O'Brien. Welcome to room 101.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is that from a knowledgeable source or did you come up with that yourself?

Both actually. I think it's pretty obvious, but if you've been reading about the issue at all, you'll find that the CIA insists vehemently that useful information was gleaned from torture enhanced interrogation, which is actually a far stronger claim than that it works.

Do those who say torture DID produce actionable info have a comprehensive list of when it worked and if so then why did they not tell the inquiry?

The report is a partisan and tendentious document. If you can't see that it's just part of the flame war between Senate Democrats and the CIA, then you haven't been paying attention.