Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

sunmaster14 said:
It is natural and logical to legalize that which is morally permissible.
Click to expand...
This is precisely what the author is arguing against.


The entire last section of the paper is dedicated to the proposition that it is not necessary to make our legal and moral systems coincide. That it is ok for some things which are morally permissible to be deemed illegal, even though that would strike many people as unjust. That was the relatively unique argument that the author was making. His two contributions are: (1) torture may be morally permissible in some instances; and (2) that which is morally permissible should still be kept illegal because it would be bad policy to try to make it legal.
Click to expand...
Not just bad policy, a threat to liberal democratic institutions. Counter to our principles.

"...torture, a practice that strikes at the very heart of the fundamental liberal value of individual autonomy..."

Not just bad policy...

Routine <> legal/institutionalized.
Click to expand...
Which is why the author uses multiple terms. The author is taking great pains to create a spectrum of what should not be. Torture should not be "routine". Torture should not be "legal". Torture should not be "institutionalized". Torture should not be "tolerated".

It simply isn't true in general, and it isn't true for the purposes of this paper. In fact, one of the legalization advocate arguments he attacks is the claim that keeping torture illegal will make it more routine because it will be kept in the shadows.
Click to expand...
The author is against the use of torture. Whether it is routine, warrants, tolerated, institutionalized, legalized, a culture.
 
BTW: We've let something slip from the conversation.

Nothing that the CIA did had any resemblance to a known and specified threat as delineated in the two examples of the paper.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Do you usually answer questions with questions?
Click to expand...

OK I will expand. Offering rewards for information and "destruct - testing of the human body" are completely different.

Ignoring the vast moral difference for a while, an honest person who knows nothing will say so if offered a reward. An honest person who knows nothing but is being tortured will make something up.

ETA: There is no reason to suppose a dishonest person will do otherwise
 
Last edited:
I think, with all this eqivocation over the value of torture (I can't believe I had to type that) that we are missing the fundemental point of the violation of an international treaty by the US authorities.

It is a moot point whether it is useful or necessary in any circumstances. These might be interesting discussions to some and a useful diversion to others but surely the fundemental point is the illegal activity by the US government and the subsequent lack of anything approaching meeting their obligations.
 
3point14 said:
I think, with all this eqivocation over the value of torture (I can't believe I had to type that) that we are missing the fundemental point of the violation of an international treaty by the US authorities.

It is a moot point whether it is useful or necessary in any circumstances. These might be interesting discussions to some and a useful diversion to others but surely the fundemental point is the illegal activity by the US government and the subsequent lack of anything approaching meeting their obligations.
Click to expand...

While I agree it is important whether or not it is illegal, laws can change. It is the effectiveness, or lack thereof, that makes the issue moot, at least for information gathering.
 
3point14 said:
I think, with all this eqivocation over the value of torture (I can't believe I had to type that) that we are missing the fundemental point of the violation of an international treaty by the US authorities.

It is a moot point whether it is useful or necessary in any circumstances. These might be interesting discussions to some and a useful diversion to others but surely the fundemental point is the illegal activity by the US government and the subsequent lack of anything approaching meeting their obligations.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I made that point to 'sunmaster14' as well because he was unfamiliar tihe the internation anti-torture treaty that the USA signed off on about 30 years ago and for some reason 'sunmaster14' thought that only to torture someone was by inflicting physical pain on them.

Anyway, he never really did address either point.
 
sunmaster14 said:
jimbob said:
There isn't enough information to say whether it worked or even happened, let alone like that. A policeman who is willing to beat up a suspect is perfectly capable of making up a story to justify his habit of beating up suspects.
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't actually believe this incident happened. It is, nevertheless, plausible. The question is, "what would you do?"
Click to expand...

So you are basing your argument on some hypothetical situations that beg the question by assuming torture works when there are centuries of evidence that torture is ineffective.
 
Crossbow said:
Thank you.

I made that point to 'sunmaster14' as well because he was unfamiliar tihe the internation anti-torture treaty that the USA signed off on about 30 years ago and for some reason 'sunmaster14' thought that only to torture someone was by inflicting physical pain on them.

Anyway, he never really did address either point.
Click to expand...


Well the trouble is that that argument is over. By it's own admission the US government broke international law.

The question is now one of consequenses which appear to be zero.

This pretty much reduces to toilet paper every international agreement the US has ever signed. The only authority the US has now to ensure other nations adhere to their treaty obligations is one of force. There is no moral authority at all.
 
Crossbow said:
Thank you.

I made that point to 'sunmaster14' as well because he was unfamiliar tihe the internation anti-torture treaty that the USA signed off on about 30 years ago and for some reason 'sunmaster14' thought that only to torture someone was by inflicting physical pain on them.

Anyway, he never really did address either point.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I have been familiar with the anti-torture treaty for the entire time it has been in existence. You simply misunderstood the point I was making, which is that torture is defined as severe pain, and that therefore there are no international treaties which govern the infliction of less than severe pain or lengthy interrogations on unlawful combatants.
 
I think that "enhanced interrogation techniques" where the interrogated person dies as a consequence could quite easily be defined as torturing someone to death.
 
sunmaster14 said:
What are you talking about? I have been familiar with the anti-torture treaty for the entire time it has been in existence. You simply misunderstood the point I was making, which is that torture is defined as severe pain, and that therefore there are no international treaties which govern the infliction of less than severe pain or lengthy interrogations on unlawful combatants.
Click to expand...

Once again:

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






The Whitehouse acknowledges that the US authorities indulged in internationally banned acts. Why can't you?
 
3point14 and Crossbow - I do agree that breaking international and national laws is also a severe problem.
 
Upchurch said:
While I agree it is important whether or not it is illegal, laws can change. It is the effectiveness, or lack thereof, that makes the issue moot, at least for information gathering.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I find the moral permissible argument dubious. How often does society find itself in need of torture. The examples are so counterfactual that they serve more as rationalization than proving any insight into whether or not we should consider the use of torture.

Add to that the fact that torture shocks our moral conscience, has the potential to harm innocent people, is often abused and debauches individuals and institutions, then it's hard to find any reasonable consideration for torture at all, extreme unlikely scenarios notwithstanding.
 
3point14 said:
Once again:

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
Click to expand...
Moral integrity is not strengthened by ignoring one's moral responsibilities.

This period of our history is a shameful one.
 
sunmaster14 said:
What are you talking about? I have been familiar with the anti-torture treaty for the entire time it has been in existence. You simply misunderstood the point I was making, which is that torture is defined as severe pain, and that therefore there are no international treaties which govern the infliction of less than severe pain or lengthy interrogations on unlawful combatants.
Click to expand...

Once the phrase "rectal prolapse" enters the equation, trying to split hairs between "severe" and "less than severe" pain just won't wash.


Try a different justification for human rights abuses.
 
As usual, people love to jump to conclusions without knowing anything about the topic. The discussion that Crossbow referenced begins roughly here.

I have consistently believed that the most severe interrogation techniques employed by the CIA do amount to torture and are covered by the Torture Convention.

I don't know why people can't do even a little bit of review of the discussion before weighing in. Well, actually I do know, but it isn't a shining example of critical thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom