Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Upchurch]

Neither has not been supported convincingly. The counter arguments - effectiveness, rule of law, long-term consequences - have been ignored.

Yes.

I doubt there is anything else you could present in support of your position that would not be too little and too late.

Yes/No. I agree that there probably isn't anything else to present to support torture apologetics that hasn't already been presented, which thus far has been woefully insufficient. I disagree, however, that it is too late. New data, when presented, should always be evaluated no matter how late it is in the game.

 

[fishbob]

The hit happened when it was confirmed that torture happened in the name of the people of the US.

What has absolutely shattered it, in my eyes, is that there will be no consequences. This means next time it is convenient for anyone in the CIA/FBI?NSA/USMC or anyone in any position of power in Washington to disregard international law then they will do so as there are no consequences. I'll say that again, in the USA there are no consequences for confirmed, undeniable international crimes of torture.

Why on earth should any individual or agency ever deal with the US with trust and understanding that commitments will be met and restrictions will be observed when, for the entire US government and associated agencies, these things are mere inconveniences to be disregarded when it suits.

I agree. it is the lack of those prosecutions that will, I'm afraid I sincerely hope, cause the rest of the world to tell the US president, the next time they issue a call to arms of any nature, to go **** him or herself as their words are simply piss in the wind.

Oh, there will be consequences - just not for the perpetrators. The country will be trying to clean up this mess for at least a generation. Consequences will fall on our soldiers, our civilians working overseas, our sporting events, our journalists, our health-care workers, our allies, and our liberties.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, there will be consequences - just not for the perpetrators. The country will be trying to clean up this mess for at least a generation. Consequences will fall on our soldiers, our civilians working overseas, our sporting events, our journalists, our health-care workers, our allies, and our liberties.

I feel this will probably be the Japanese internment camps of our generation, where people look back and say, "What were they thinking? What sort of irrational madness overtook them?"

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes.


Yes/No. I agree that there probably isn't anything else to present to support torture apologetics that hasn't already been presented, which thus far has been woefully insufficient. I disagree, however, that it is too late. New data, when presented, should always be evaluated no matter how late it is in the game.

Evidently, nobody is reading my posts. I have posted that torture may, in certain circumstances, attract the defence of necessity, thereby making it not a crime. Why is that not an argument supporting Sunmaster's position? Actually, it goes further than his position.

What is the qualitative difference between the extreme and clear examples given in the recently discussed article and what the CIA has been doing? I would suggest the CIA cannot demonstrate that its use of force is proportionate, necessary or the only way to avoid consequences worse than those inherent in the torture itself.

 

[3point14]

I feel this will probably be the Japanese internment camps of our generation, where people look back and say, "What were they thinking? What sort of irrational madness overtook them?"

Now, as then, a lack of moral courage (or even a moral compass) in your leader's and a very undemocratic belief the population have that their actions change nothing.

I would point out that I'm not usually one for the (often popular, round here) sport of US bashing and I apologise if it sounds like I am but, on this occasion I believe such criticism to be not only justified but also necessary.

I would also point out that I would put money on our leaders acting in exactly the same way or (just throwing this out there...) colluding with American criminals during the course of events discussed here.

 

[Upchurch]

Evidently, nobody is reading my posts. I have posted that torture may, in certain circumstances, attract the defence of necessity, thereby making it not a crime. Why is that not an argument supporting Sunmaster's position? Actually, it goes further than his position.

Because it has the same failing in that it makes the assumption that the torture was necessary. It doesn't actually do anything to support the fundamental assumption of apologetics.

What is the qualitative difference between the extreme and clear examples given in the recently discussed article and what the CIA has been doing?

Nothing. Those examples have the same fundamental flaws.

I would suggest the CIA cannot demonstrate that its use of force is proportionate, necessary or the only way to avoid consequences worse than those inherent in the torture itself.

Suggest it all you like, but if you want anyone to believe you, you'll have to supported the highlighted claims.

eta: I may have misread that last bit. Are you saying that even though the CIA cannot demonstrate it, it was? Or are you saying that the CIA cannot demonstrate it because it was not?

 

[anglolawyer]

Because it has the same failing in that it makes the assumption that the torture was necessary. It doesn't actually do anything to support the fundamental assumption of apologetics.


Nothing. Those examples have the same fundamental flaws.


Suggest it all you like, but if you want anyone to believe you, you'll have to supported the highlighted claims.

eta: I may have misread that last bit. Are you saying that even though the CIA cannot demonstrate it, it was? Or are you saying that the CIA cannot demonstrate it because it was not?

You are mis-reading me, yes. That is because I am siding with sunmaster to a limited extent but against him in the main. I am with (in fact, beyond) him in arguing that torture may be legal in certain very limited circumstances and I am then using the legal principles I set out earlier to show what the CIA would need to demonstrate in order to avail itself of legal protection (assuming the English common law of necessity applied in the US, as it may well do for all I know). Like you, I don't think the CIA could do so. I agree the burden is on whoever says otherwise to make out the case.

 

[Garrette]

Evidently, nobody is reading my posts. I have posted that torture may, in certain circumstances, attract the defence of necessity, thereby making it not a crime. Why is that not an argument supporting Sunmaster's position? Actually, it goes further than his position.

What is the qualitative difference between the extreme and clear examples given in the recently discussed article and what the CIA has been doing? I would suggest the CIA cannot demonstrate that its use of force is proportionate, necessary or the only way to avoid consequences worse than those inherent in the torture itself.

I have been reading and have been impressed. I won't say swayed because it's more that you have better expressed what I have been unable to in other threads. We're not exactly the same in what you have written, but close.

 

[jimbob]

Have you ever heard "innocent until proven guilty"? Those tortured were largely only suspected of involvement.

And we do know that 20% of the captives were acknowledged to be innocent

 

[Upchurch]

Related:

In wake of Senate report, Dick Cheney says terrorists 'not covered by the Geneva Convention' - rated Mostly False

Cheney’s claim that the U.S. did not prosecute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding - rated Three Pinocchios

The man is a sociopath.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A perfect spokesperson for the GOP.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think that if Obama isn't going to prosecute Cheney, ect. he should at least pardon them as a way to show that what they did was criminal and the only reason they aren't in prison is because of a Presidential pardon. Until then, Cheney can point to the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted as "evidence" that he isn't a war criminal.

 

[tsig]

Evidently, nobody is reading my posts. I have posted that torture may, in certain circumstances, attract the defence of necessity, thereby making it not a crime. Why is that not an argument supporting Sunmaster's position? Actually, it goes further than his position.

What is the qualitative difference between the extreme and clear examples given in the recently discussed article and what the CIA has been doing? I would suggest the CIA cannot demonstrate that its use of force is proportionate, necessary or the only way to avoid consequences worse than those inherent in the torture itself.

You think that torture produces the truth?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think that if Obama isn't going to prosecute Cheney, ect. he should at least pardon them as a way to show that what they did was criminal and the only reason they aren't in prison is because of a Presidential pardon. Until then, Cheney can point to the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted as "evidence" that he isn't a war criminal.

I think your strategy would produce even more outrage. We already know that having political power shields a person from criminal prosecution, your strategy would be like the President bragging about that fact. "We know you're guilty, but you're one of us, so you get to go free."

It would be nice for a president to have the courage to simply prosecute the previous administration for the crimes that they committed and let those who are guilty suffer the full consequences.

Until then, the persons sitting as president will continue to just ignore those crimes.

 

[RandFan]

¹First, I'd like to note your dramatic shifting of the goal posts (and you're not the only one doing this). I started out this discussion trying to defend two ideas: (1) that torture is morally permissible in certain situations; and (2) that torture and the justification for it exists on a continuum. If one accepts those two ideas, then one can properly analyze the actions of the CIA and put them into the proper context. My conclusion, and I have been consistent throughout (as you can check by reading this thread in its entirety beginning one week ago and reading the Condoleezza Rice thread from 6-7 months ago) is that the CIA was wrong to use the methods it used, but it wasn't THAT wrong. I do not think it was justified, but it wasn't THAT unjustified. The events deserve some national introspection, but the moral outrage shown here and in liberal circles is over the top and I believe driven by partisanship (although perhaps unconsciously).

As for the paper, I am fully in agreement with it.² I think if you took the time to reread my posts, you might suspect that I am in fact the author. However, the paper is necessarily incomplete. ³It didn't address other situations, particularly those analogous to what the CIA faced. The author spends a good deal of time attacking moral absolutism. Therefore, ⁴I don't think he would advocate pre-judging an act of torture as immoral just because the danger was, say 24 hours away, rather than 1 hour away, or that there was only a 50% of succeeding instead of a 99% chance of succeeding. The CIA thought it was facing imminent and severe threats. Imminence and severity lie on a continuum, just as the degree of torture does. Once we have abandoned our moral absolutism, we are free to judge each situation on its own merits. Note that this has nothing to do with what the law should be. This is about moral calculations by reasonable human beings.

As to the moral culpability of the victim of torture, the paper simply does not address that (unless I missed it). Failing to address an issue does not mean the author dismisses it as irrelevant. I do not think it is irrelevant, and ⁵I am confident that the vast majority of human beings agree with me. It is built deep into our evolved moral framework that a human being who commits evil acts has a lower moral status than an innocent human being. He has degraded himself, and his life and well-being are consequently worth less. Supporters of capital punishment, which make up the majority in the US, implicitly accept this principle.

1. No goal shifting on my part. I started this thread admitting that we could dream up a hypothetical to justify an instance of torture.
2. I don't at all suspect that you are the author. I am also quite certain you don't even understand the paper or the pains the author takes to distinguish between a one-off emergency and routine torture.
3. The author is clear to argue against a continuum. That is the over riding narrative of the paper. Torture harms society.
4. You don't even understand the purpose of the paper.
5. This is a fallacious appeal ad populum.

 

[Upchurch]

You think that torture produces the truth?

Torture produces anything, including truth. The problem is that it doesn't exclusively produce truth or even mostly produce truth.

It is designed to produce something that sounds like what the torturer wants to hear.

 

[3point14]

I think that if Obama isn't going to prosecute Cheney, ect. he should at least pardon them as a way to show that what they did was criminal and the only reason they aren't in prison is because of a Presidential pardon. Until then, Cheney can point to the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted as "evidence" that he isn't a war criminal.

Same net result. No consequenses for those who torture or order torture.

Message to the higher ups in the US political sphere: 'Do what you like, there will be no personal consequenses.'

Message to the US citizens: 'We know it's bad but we torture people in your name and don't care that it's wrong - here, let these torturers walk freely among you.'

Message to the international community: '**** you.'

 

[thaiboxerken]

Torture produces anything, including truth. The problem is that it doesn't exclusively produce truth or even mostly produce truth.

It is designed to produce something that sounds like what the torturer wants to hear.

Yes, and this is done in order to justify an action that the torturer, or his employers want. In conservative world, the women who confessed to witch-craft really were witches...

 

[Tony Stark]

I think your strategy would produce even more outrage. We already know that having political power shields a person from criminal prosecution, your strategy would be like the President bragging about that fact. "We know you're guilty, but you're one of us, so you get to go free."

It would be nice for a president to have the courage to simply prosecute the previous administration for the crimes that they committed and let those who are guilty suffer the full consequences.

Until then, the persons sitting as president will continue to just ignore those crimes.

I would rather there be prosecutions to but that doesn't seem like it will ever happen. At least with a pardon, it will be part of the official record that Cheney is a war criminal.

 

[3point14]

I would rather there be prosecutions to but that doesn't seem like it will ever happen. At least with a pardon, it will be part of the official record that Cheney is a war criminal.

And that will affect Cheney how?