Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Garrette]

I'm still not sure what you think the false dichotomy is. My point has always been that the US keeps improving its standards of behavior. In large part, this is a luxury of increasing wealth and security, as well as advanced technology, e.g. precision weaponry. To some extent, it is improving standards of morality for their own sake (e.g. protecting civil rights for minorities). I still think that most of our social progress has been enabled by our increasing wealth and security, though, in that we can "afford" to act more morally and not suffer much downside from it. It has always been the case, and always will be the case, that we'll "do what we have to do" in order to survive. That is pretty much true for all humans and all countries. We'll turn into a police state if terrorists ever manage to detonate a nuclear weapon in a major city, for instance.



Ok, well that was a good day, I guess, from your perspective. Personally, I'm not too fond of Eisenhower's response, which I thought was undertaken in both a fit of pique and an incorrect assessment of the geopolitical situation (he thought that Nasser could become an ally against the Soviets). Note that his response was similar to the US response to Britain and France's attempts to reconstitute their colonial empires after WWII. We were fine with it until we saw it as an impediment to our rivalry with the Soviets. In fact, we at first had made a kind of a cynical bargain with the Brits. We'll stop complaining about your racist treatment of the black people of Africa, if you stop complaining about our racist treatment of the black people of the US. All in all, I'm not terribly impressed with the US of the 1950s.

I cannot possibly make the false dichotomy more clear. You said either the US is better than it ever has been or it was never good. You allowed no middle ground.

And now you change, again, what you mean by "better." Now you call it a behavioral thing. One of your first responses to me involved political difficulties overseas; hardly a behavioral thing at all.

Your criticism of Eisenhower's response is only a partial criticism. I've no issue with Realkpolitik tinging our actions, nor have I ever claimed perfection. I said "finest hour," not "perfect hour."

As it is clear that you will not acknowledge either that your criteria for "better" is ever-changing and that you will not answer the questions regarding when the torture actually worked, I find the conversation fruitless and so will bow out. At least for now.

 

[3point14]

I thought that only torture was proscribed, which means intentional infliction of severe pain. The only international laws I am aware of which deal with any kind of pain or lengthy interrogations apply only to legal combatants in a military conflict. They wouldn't apply to policing activities within a state, nor to unlawful combatants.

Are you cashing in the 'it's only some place on a continuum' thing?

 

[Upchurch]

Do you not agree that there is a continuum for the use of force and mistreatment, and that there exists a grey area between what is torture and what is not torture?

I do, but we're not talking about a grey area.

You still seem to be misunderstanding my "continuity" argument, which is not that what happened doesn't constitute torture, but rather that there are logical implications to the acceptance of a continuum. If you accept that it is ok for a police officer to threaten or use physical force to subdue a suspect, because the goal of subduing a potential criminal is worth the immorality the inflicting pain (or threat of pain) on a human being, then it is impossible to draw a line at which the use of a certain kind of physical force is at all times unjustified.

No, I seem to be understanding it just fine. You're trying to justify torture by making the argument that there isn't a point where it becomes "torture" and therefore "wrong". It's the same kind of navel-gazing that can come to the conclusion that one cannot know if "red" is ever really red, in a Plutonic Forms sense.

There may be a spectrum, but at some point, we are clearly in the socially understood range known as "torture". Waterboarding, for example, was treated as a war crime in the trials following WWII. I'm comfortable using that as a benchmark for a portion of the spectrum solidly in the "torture" range. I would argue that forcibly inserting food up a person's ass (without consent, of course) as another data point.


Regardless, it's still a complete non-sequitur from the ticking-time-bomb scenario and an attempt to move the goal posts. You're evading defending your earlier claim to hide behind a wall of pseudo-philosophy.

 

[sunmaster14]

Are you cashing in the 'it's only some place on a continuum' thing?

I'm trying to make a mathematical argument based on the continuousness of a posited indifference curve for moral behavior.

So, imagine a curve in the x-y plane, where the x-coordinate is the amount of pain inflicted on a detainee, and the y-coordinate is the amount of social gain (in terms of, say, protecting innocent lives) resulting from inflicting that pain.

The moral indifference curve, would be that set of points, where the infliction of pain represented by the x-coordinate is just barely morally justified by the social gain represented by the y-coordinate. Any value of social gain above the curve at some point x (i.e. some amount of pain infliction) is clearly justified morally. Conversely, for any point on the curve (x₁,y₁), the social gain y₁ clearly justifies infliction of pain less than x₁.

The fact that we accept infliction of pain in small measure to force certain behaviors in people (we do it all the time), means that such an indifference curve exists, at least for values between x=0 and x=mild amounts of pain. The question is, does the indifference curve extend continuously past (albeit with a steep, positive slope) "mild amounts of pain" or does it discontinuously spike to infinity at the point we refer to as torture?

I claim there is no logical reason to believe that such an indifference curve would be discontinuous at any point. It may have a very steep, positive slope like, e.g. y=e^x, but it is still continuous. If it is continuous, then there exists a finite value y, for any value of x. Hence, in theory at least, there exists some finite value of social gain, which would justify any given amount of pain infliction.

 

[3point14]

I'm trying to make a mathematical argument based on the continuousness of a posited indifference curve for moral behavior.

So, imagine a curve in the x-y plane, where the x-coordinate is the amount of pain inflicted on a detainee, and the y-coordinate is the amount of social gain (in terms of, say, protecting innocent lives) resulting from inflicting that pain.

The moral indifference curve, would be that set of points, where the infliction of pain represented by the x-coordinate is just barely morally justified by the social gain represented by the y-coordinate. Any value of social gain above the curve at some point x (i.e. some amount of pain infliction) is clearly justified morally. Conversely, for any point on the curve (x₁,y₁), the social gain y₁ clearly justifies infliction of pain less than x₁.

The fact that we accept infliction of pain in small measure to force certain behaviors in people (we do it all the time), means that such an indifference curve exists, at least for values between x=0 and x=mild amounts of pain. The question is, does the indifference curve extend continuously past (albeit with a steep, positive slope) "mild amounts of pain" or does it discontinuously spike to infinity at the point we refer to as torture?

I claim there is no logical reason to believe that such an indifference curve would be discontinuous at any point. It may have a very steep, positive slope like, e.g. y=e^x, but it is still continuous. If it is continuous, then there exists a finite value y, for any value of x. Hence, in theory at least, there exists some finite value of social gain, which would justify any given amount of pain infliction.

You disregard purpose.

 

[jimbob]

Once more, World War II was a total war against an alliance of states that had killed millions and threatened US territory to say nothing about threatening the very existence of many nation-states in Europe. The war on terror was initially against a few thousand terrorists who managed a few spectacular attacks. The only way they threatened the US way of life was in the response curtailing fundamental liberties.

Area bombing in WWII probably cost the bombing forces more than the defending forces, but this wasn't known at the time and even if it did, it still kept resources in Germany rather than the Eastern (and later Western) front. It has been known for ages that torture doesn't work. In fact the CIA itself investigated related ideas in the failed (and now declassified) MKULTRA project.

 

[Upchurch]

Area bombing in WWII probably cost the bombing forces more than the defending forces, but this wasn't known at the time and even if it did, it still kept resources in Germany rather than the Eastern (and later Western) front. It has been known for ages that torture doesn't work.* In fact the CIA itself investigated related ideas in the failed (and now declassified) MKULTRA project.

* I'm assuming you mean, "It has been known for ages that torture doesn't work for intelligence gathering."



Which raises the question, again, of why torture continues to be used. Either those in charge at the time had not learned from history and were subsequently doomed to repeat its mistakes, or the point wasn't to gather information.

 

[Crossbow]

I thought that only torture was proscribed, which means intentional infliction of severe pain. The only international laws I am aware of which deal with any kind of pain or lengthy interrogations apply only to legal combatants in a military conflict. They wouldn't apply to policing activities within a state, nor to unlawful combatants.

Well then your thinking is quite wrong because the USA became a signatory to the 'United Nations Convention against Torture' in 1988.

 

[jimbob]

* I'm assuming you mean, "It has been known for ages that torture doesn't work for intelligence gathering."



Which raises the question, again, of why torture continues to be used. Either those in charge at the time had not learned from history and were subsequently doomed to repeat its mistakes, or the point wasn't to gather information.

Fair point. If you want a false confession for a show trial or someone to say whatever they think you want, then it does work.

 

[sunmaster14]

Once more, World War II was a total war against an alliance of states that had killed millions and threatened US territory to say nothing about threatening the very existence of many nation-states in Europe. The war on terror was initially against a few thousand terrorists who managed a few spectacular attacks. The only way they threatened the US way of life was in the response curtailing fundamental liberties.

Right, which is why causing the excruciatingly painful deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, including children, would have not been morally justified. I mean in order to justify inflicting suffering on that large a scale (e.g. Dresden in February 1945, Tokyo in March 1945, Hiroshima/Nagasaki in August 1945), you would have to think that you could shorten a war that was basically already won by at least a few weeks.

I'm wondering how much worse do you think it is to burn hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to death in comparison to waterboarding three mass murderers?

Area bombing in WWII probably cost the bombing forces more than the defending forces, but this wasn't known at the time and even if it did, it still kept resources in Germany rather than the Eastern (and later Western) front.

Ok, so it didn't really work, but we can't really hold that against "Bombs Away" LeMay or "Bomber" Harris because they thought it would be an effective strategy at the time. I feel similarly about the people who authorized and carried out waterboarding in 2002-2003.

It has been known for ages that torture doesn't work. In fact the CIA itself investigated related ideas in the failed (and now declassified) MKULTRA project.

People here keep saying that despite the lack of any published evidence one way or the other. For the record, there sure are a lot of people at the CIA who believe it does work. As for the MKULTRA project, I haven't found any information about the efficacy of torture to extract information. The reference is useful to show to Garrette, however, since it seems like the program was going strong on Nov 2, 1956 when Eisenhower's behavior was otherwise exemplary.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well then your thinking is quite wrong because the USA became a signatory to the 'United Nations Convention against Torture' in 1988.

Well, perhaps you can check for me, but my understanding was that the United Nations Convention against Torture had to do with, you know, torture and not mild or moderate levels of pain infliction.

 

[3point14]

You'll be needing this:

Torture:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

— Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

 

[Upchurch]

Well, perhaps you can check for me, but my understanding was that the United Nations Convention against Torture had to do with, you know, torture and not mild or moderate levels of pain infliction.

Mild or moderate levels of pain infliction are not what we're discussing and is off-topic.

Would you care to support the claim you made that was on-topic?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Mild or moderate levels of pain infliction are not what we're discussing and is off-topic.

Would you care to support the claim you made that was on-topic?

Also, pain isn't a necessary factor in torturing a person. The Chinese water torture method is torturous and only involves dripping water on a person.

 

[sunmaster14]

Mild or moderate levels of pain infliction are not what we're discussing and is off-topic.

I'm having multiple conversations at once. The distinction between torture and mild/moderate pain infliction arose in a dialog with 3.14 about my extrapolation from police interrogations to CIA "enhanced" interrogations. My claim is that international law is silent on the kind of pain infliction done by police thousands of times every day in the US.

Would you care to support the claim you made that was on-topic?

As I said, my claim is a theoretical one. I do not have a concrete example of something that has already transpired where torture was appropriate to use, but it is easy to imagine such situations, even plausible ones. You refuse to accept these because you do not want to admit that your moral absolutism is untenable. In the other thread, I even gave you a scenario in which some evil psychologist set up an experiment where you were forced to press a button which would inflict severe pain on a subject in order to save the life of an innocent person. Although something like this may never have happened (although, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Nazi experimenters had some "fun" with ideas like this), it easily could happen. You would be presented with two alternatives - either cause a person to be tortured or allow an innocent person (or 10 or 100) to be killed. You simply refuse to consider a hypothetical situation, even though such hypotheticals are quite standard in discussions of philosophy and morality.

 

[foophil]

The greatest success of the CIA's torture program was the apprehension of a man who thought he could make a hydrogen bomb by tying a plastic bucket filled with uranium to a rope and swinging it around his head for 45 minutes.

But the truth, it turns out, is that to apprehend a man that the CIA itself called "cockamamie" and one who should "keep his day job," the agency didn't need torture at all, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the CIA’s use of torture during interrogations.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an...ding-an-h-bomb-was-used-to-legitimize-torture

This case was one of the most frequently cited examples of how torture was effective. Except torture wasn't needed even here. If this was the best the CIA had, then that is pathetic.

People calling for studies and examples proving torture isn't effective are looking at it the wrong way. Show us examples of where torture WAS effective, and was the ONLY method of extracting information, and that it was worth the effort and human suffering involved, then maybe you'll earn some respect. Not from me as I'm one of those dreamers who think we should never cross that line. Ever.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What I am saying is that America has been getting less 'good' as the years since 1945 have passed, especially in the last 13 years, to the point at which the word 'bad' is hoving into view: it drags the world into unnecessary, stupid, counter-productive, ill-considered and illegal wars, destabilises the world's economy with insane borrowing and financial shenanigans, erodes moral values by torturing people, sows mistrust by scheming in an increasingly unprincipled manner, tells lies and cocks a snook at its treaty obligations.

How many pre-1945 examples of US behaving badly would you like? Illegal unprovoked wars such as the invasion of Northern Mexico (1848) or Cuba (1898)? Signing and then ignoring the terms of nearly every treaty between the US and the various "Indian" nations in a bloody war of conquest? Bayoneting and hacking with sabers women and children, setting fire to innocent villages and committing biological warfare against those same Nations?

I could go on, but I think you miss something important: nations do Bad Things, always have, but since 1945 We The People have known about them through the agency of, among other things, an independent news media.

I dispute specifically your assertion that the behavior of the US is qualitatively or quantitatively "worse" since 1945 than previously.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Why are we even discussing "mild discomfort" in a scenario where people had stuff forced up their rectums?

Do you guys do this in discussions on genocide? "Well, how many have to die? What if the Nazis only killed one Jew? HMMM????"

 

[RandFan]

People calling for studies and examples proving torture isn't effective are looking at it the wrong way. Show us examples of where torture WAS effective, and was the ONLY method of extracting information, and that it was worth the effort and human suffering involved, then maybe you'll earn some respect. Not from me as I'm one of those dreamers who think we should never cross that line. Ever.

^^This. I tried to defend torture but I couldn't find any evidence that it was effective.

 

[Upchurch]

As I said, my claim is a theoretical one. I do not have a concrete example of something that has already transpired where torture was appropriate to use, but it is easy to imagine such situations, even plausible ones. You refuse to accept these because you do not want to admit that your moral absolutism is untenable.

No. I refuse to accept on faith the assumption you are making regarding the effectiveness of torture, which is required to be a solution to the ticking-time-bomb scenario. Although I do find torture morally deplorable, the question of morality is unnecessary in your hypothetical situation.

So, unless you can provide some evidence that torture is an effective way of solving the ticking-time-bomb scenario over other forms of interrogation, your claim is given without evidence and can be equally dismissed without evidence.

In the other thread, I even gave you a scenario in which some evil psychologist set up an experiment where you were forced to press a button which would inflict severe pain on a subject in order to save the life of an innocent person.

Another red hearing to evade the glaring hole in your claim.