Ship of Fools: Torture, when do we support it?

Thread: Torture, when do we support it? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024616

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In Amrit Singh's report* she documents how the CIA gained the cooperation of 54 governments around the world to support them in "rendering" people, and in torturing them. So the answer to the question "torture, when do we support it?" seems to be "whenever we're asked to". The CIA would appear to be engaged in criminal human rights violations and 1/4 of the governments in the world are accessories and complicit.

What do you think? Can we ever justify this sort of thing?

(* Amrit Singh works for Open Society Foundation of New York.)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Link to Amrit Singh's report.

quote:

Snatching people off the streets. Hanging people from the ceiling. A man freezing to death alone on a concrete floor. This is the story of how the United States used its position to cajole, persuade, and strong-arm 54 other countries to take part in the CIA’s post-9/11 campaign of secret detention and torture.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

When we see Jesus incarnate do it.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

When will I support it? Never.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When we see Jesus incarnate do it.

I was going to say NEVER. NOT EVER. But this is an even better answer - at least for Christians.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

But I thought George W. Bush was a Christian, and even had bible studies with his cabinet. Don't mean to be inflammatory here, but maybe I do.

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

NEVER

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But I thought George W. Bush was a Christian, and even had bible studies with his cabinet. Don't mean to be inflammatory here, but maybe I do.

Right, so Christians who don't believe they're guided by God ti invade random countries, then.

A classic case of Matthew 25. I'm pretty sure the sheep aren't saying "Lord, when was it that you were in prison and we hung you from the ceiling with electrodes attached to your testicles?" The goats, maybe.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Why does torture only ever come up when it involves a trendy target such as the United States?

Torture is intolerable whether carried out by the USA, its proxies, or any of the other numerous countries which perpetrate it - communist, Islamist, Buddhist, post-colonial or whatever.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Why does torture only ever come up when it involves a trendy target such as the United States?

Torture is intolerable whether carried out by the USA, its proxies, or any of the other numerous countries which perpetrate it - communist, Islamist, Buddhist, post-colonial or whatever.

Probably because our government is quite happy to condemn torture in other countries on our behalf, but will never speak a word of criticism against the US and is generally complicit in torture carried out by the US. In a supposdely democratic society the start of changing that is by publically discussing it.

There's also the issue of rank hypocrisy. You (generic you) don't get to go around calling yourself the "leader of the free world" and trample all over human rights. You don't get to say "in God we trust" (and generally imply you mean the God of Jews and Christians not those dirty mozlems) and not get called on actions that go against Christian teaching.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I thought this article about John Brennan, the proposed head of the CIA, the USA spy and apparently torture agency was quite informative. I perceive a complete moral collapse. Torture is good as long as we do it. Brennan apparently has lost any influence from his Jesuit education.

quote:
Torture doesn't matter anymore, at least not to the Barack Obama administration. Four years ago, John Brennan, a 25-year veteran of the CIA, was forced to withdraw his name from consideration to be CIA Director (DCI) because of his public support of--and likely participation in--the Bush administration’s programs of torturing terrorism suspects and/or sending them to foreign prisons to be tortured.

And this is too cute to leave out:

quote:
If confirmed, he would succeed Gen. David Petraeus, who resigned following revelations of an extra-marital affair in November 2009.

So, according to Obama, it's okay to kidnap and torture and kill terrorism suspects without even a hint of "due process of law," but if you put your dick in the wrong person, you're unfit to run the CIA.

[ 08. February 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

We support it when we can't be bothered to oppose it, --Good men doing nothing and all that.

And the reason most good men/women have done very little to oppose post 9/11 torture is that they,(we), have successfully been made to fear a greater evil.

[ 08. February 2013, 21:16: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There's also the issue of rank hypocrisy.

Yes, well fortunately that's not a problem with any of the examples which I cited, all of of which are exemplarily humble and honest about themselves.

Pity that the uniquely hypocritical USA couldn't take a leaf out of their book.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The USA IS uniquely hypocritical. Nobody else comes CLOSE. Although my beloved Britain particularly under my then hero Tony Blair, second only to Churchill, did. Does. And rolyn you are so right. We are SUPINE as OUR Caesar subcontracts out torture in OUR name to paragons like Gaddafi.

Those to whom much power has been given abuse MUCH.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I don’t think there will be too many raised eyebrows when I say that it’s fine by me as long as it does the job it’s intended to do.

I prefer that innocent people be protected from Islamic terrorists (let’s be honest, they’re who we are torturing here), rather than allowing the terrorist to kill those innocent people.

Some innocent people will be tortured of course and that is a shame. Lessons must be learnt and those situations avoided, but we are in a war, and in war the innocent are sometime victims.

Of course, torture is a very inefficient way of getting information, as people will tell the torturer what they want to hear to make the pain stop. Much better are things like sleep deprivation, drugs and multiple interrogations to check for discrepancies, but this takes time.

Hypocrisy and double standards slip down the list of what’s important when people’s lives are at stake.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I find that response outrageous deano. Gee, it's okay and unfortunate if a few innocents are tortured. Some of them also die. Okay, what if it is your brother, sister, father, mother or child? As soon as the line is crossed, then other things also become possible. In retaliation. If the USA can torture, then others who have lesser resources, are they justified with suicide bombings, random murder and terrorism? I think they think so. And the logic is hard to see.

I'm sure we'll see in the future a story of someone who was tortured by Americans who tracks down the torturers and kills them in front of their homes in front of their children. The trial of the murderer would be interesting. Just a matter of time.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don’t think there will be too many raised eyebrows when I say that it’s fine by me as long as it does the job it’s intended to do.

I prefer that innocent people be protected from Islamic terrorists (let’s be honest, they’re who we are torturing here), rather than allowing the terrorist to kill those innocent people.

Some innocent people will be tortured of course and that is a shame. Lessons must be learnt and those situations avoided, but we are in a war, and in war the innocent are sometime victims.

Of course, torture is a very inefficient way of getting information, as people will tell the torturer what they want to hear to make the pain stop. Much better are things like sleep deprivation, drugs and multiple interrogations to check for discrepancies, but this takes time.

Hypocrisy and double standards slip down the list of what’s important when people’s lives are at stake.

Deano we are not inocent victims if we torture or condone any such abuse.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
but we are in a war, and in war the innocent are sometime victims.

By any Christian standard, innocent people must not be targetted but might be 'collateral'

Even then, just war theory forbids torture.

In any case, the evidence gained as a result of torture is usually inaccurate.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It also tends to produce a reciprocal reaction. If the West is torturing, say, Islamic militants, what chance do Western troops have if captured?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Jesus was innocent. Tortured. Murdered. By Caesar. Nothing changes.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don’t think there will be too many raised eyebrows when I say that it’s fine by me as long as it does the job it’s intended to do.

"[T]he job [torture is] intended to do" is extract confessions, regardless of accuracy. Thanks for being honest about your priorities.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Some innocent people will be tortured of course and that is a shame. Lessons must be learnt and those situations avoided, but we are in a war, and in war the innocent are sometime victims.

<snip>

Hypocrisy and double standards slip down the list of what’s important when people’s lives are at stake.

Well, when your life might possibly be at stake in some unknown way at some indeterminate time. Other people's lives, not so much.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I prefer that innocent people be protected from Islamic terrorists (let’s be honest, they’re who we are torturing here), rather than allowing the terrorist to kill those innocent people.

Yep, torturing people who are members of a group renowned for their expressions of anger is a really great way to make them stop that group being angry with you. Adds up to me [Roll Eyes]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

My gut feeling is to reject it entirely, but I think it worthwhile trying to see the other side.

Unless you are a pacifist, you believe it is ok to kill in war, and this will often inflict pain. Plus there will be people who are maimed, psychologically destroyed and other bad things.

But there is an accepted definition of a just war, where a key factor is that the suffering caused is less than the suffering which would have taken place if the war had not happened. This calculation is impossible for most of us to do, but it gives a guide.

I expect that those who approve torture would mount a similar defense. If the pain caused is less than the pain prevented. I do not know if this can ever be the case. A key factor here is the belief that torture rarely produces results, and that it is never a more efficient way of obtaining intelligence. I am inclined to believe this, but I don't know if it has ever been proven.

And of course, there are varying degrees of torture just like there are degrees of nastiness relating to weapons of war: cluster bombs, poison gas etc.

Also, conformity to accepted treaty standards is important if a country is to keep moral credibility.

I assume those who say they would do it if they saw Jesus doing it are pacifists. If not they are playing with words.

I also note that it is widely accepted that torture was never approved in the OT despite the apparent approval of military action and King David is criticised for a specific practice generally taken to be a form of torture.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In any case, the evidence gained as a result of torture is usually inaccurate.

I agree and I said as much in my first post upthread.

I do not care about the responses against my post. It's "us" vs "them", and I am on the side of "us".

The brutal truth is they will hate us whether we torture them or not. They will kill us for simply not being like them. Thus they have to die first, and we have to extract information from them in any way that works. Torture isn't the most effective tool, but it can be quick and useful. It's a hammer, and it has a restricted utility.

That's they way it is.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
They will kill us for simply not being like them.

I don't know, they often support acts of terror as well. [Frown]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I would not assume that only Muslim extremists might be tortured, nor that only governments commit torture. For example (low-hanging fruit): did the two sides fighting in northern Ireland ever use torture?

I spent some years living in Chicago, where, at one time, there were police detectives who tortured suspects into confessing. Numerous cases have come to light.

I don't really understand (or I hope I don't) the kind of person who would torture someone else and then boast of it. To me, that seems like boasting of rape or arson.

The problem is not only that there are governments that are willing to use torture but that there are individuals willing to take such actions.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In any case, the evidence gained as a result of torture is usually inaccurate. [/QB]

Confirmed by ex-CIA Glenn Carle

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I do not care about the responses against my post. It's "us" vs "them", and I am on the side of "us".

(It's a discussion board. Why on earth post something you won't discuss?)

You say it's "us" against "them". Even taking that at face value, I challenge you to be even vaguely accurate on identifying "them".

Just in the same way the NRA seems to think that the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats, you seem to believe you have some patented way of peering into people's souls. You can't. That's the whole of the problem right there.

You will make far more of "them" by torturing someone entirely innocent. Torture is what stupid people do when they can't think of anything else to do. They think it gets them information. It doesn't. They think it inspires fear. It doesn't - it inspires hate.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... Can we ever justify this sort of thing?

Obviously not, any more than one can justify cruelty to children or rape. Silly question. Question answered. Nothing further to discuss.

There are two subsidiaries, and I think they are the only two.

1. Many of the countries that most go in for torture, don't at the same time profess a commitment to any higher standards, and

2. In most of the other countries that go in for it, a person cannot write articles in the thinking press calling the state's actions into question.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Except Enoch, the USA, with the help of my country for one, is doing it. And they claim the moral high ground. For all the trumpetting about rights, particularly about guns lately, just makes me so, so puzzled.

Here's an interesting quote.

quote:
Theodor Eicke, SS officer, 01 Oct 1933, as quoted in "In the Garden of the Beasts" by Erikson, as recalled by Rudolf Höss

Tolerance means weakness.... Any pity whatsoever for 'enemies of the State' was unworthy of an SS-man. There was no place in the ranks of the SS for men with soft hearts and any such would do well to retire quickly to a monastery. He [Eicke as formulator of rules for SS concentration camps] could only use hard, determined men who ruthlessly obeyed ever order."

If you read "CIA" for "SS", are we really seeing anything different?

I don't see how constitutions protect people, what due process is, and how either are worth anything.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
... They will kill us for simply not being like them. ... That's they way it is.

No, actually, it isn't. People don't actually wake up and say, "Hey, today I think I'll kill some Americans because they aren't like me." More often, they wake up and find out the USA is killing them. Or exploiting their resources and destroying the land, air and sea. Or arming their enemies. Sometimes the USA overthrows the government they want or supports the one they don't. Many of the people who hate the USA have a lot of good reasons to do so.
It takes willful ignorance of hundreds of years of history around the globe to say "They will kill us for simply not being like them."

I don't subscribe to this "us and them" shit. If I did, however, I would consider it essential to understand the enemy's motivation and goals, rather than pretend they're some sort of mindless, malignant force that cannot be reasoned with.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Of course, torture is a very inefficient way of getting information, as people will tell the torturer what they want to hear to make the pain stop.

How does "information" offered to stop pain help protect "the innocent?" Say I'm arrested and sent to Guantanamo for torture, er, interrogation, but I'm actually innocent (a possibility to which you seem to attach little importance).

To get a little respite from the pain, I admit to things I didn't do, claim actions that never happened, name people who may not even exist, and so on.

How does this pseudo-information and these false confessions protect the lives of "us," whoever that may be? It's all rubbish. Further, this too takes time -- time which could be spent tracking down actual terrorists.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Much better are things like sleep deprivation, drugs and multiple interrogations to check for discrepancies, but this takes time.

These methods differ from torture how, exactly?

Torture does not yield accurate, actionable intelligence. Since that's the ostensible goal of torture -- getting accurate, actionable intelligence -- there can be no justification for its use.

[ 10. February 2013, 00:34: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Torture is wrong. Torture as wrong is magnified when used, or condoned, by nations who condemn it when used against their own citizens by others.

from an article linked earlier

quote:
It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time

The interrogators beat his legs to a literal pulp which caused his death all while thinking him innocent. This is what the culture of torture begets. The bastards did not care even though they thought him innocent!

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Torture doesn't work, Deano. That, totally aside from any moral objections, should disincline you towards it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The USA IS uniquely hypocritical.

I don’t know which USA on which planet you are referring to, but if you can believe that the protestations from torturing Islamofascist, communist and other regimes about “religion of peace”, “freedom and equality ”, or “people’s will”, are outdone by any hypocrisy on the part of the USA here on planet Earth, then you are capable of believing anything.

What is more, contra paranoid Chomskyesque conspiracy theories, citizens of the US can and do publicise torture by the US in a way which is impossible under other torturing regimes, and normal people across the world show what their opinion is of the relative merits of the US versus other perpetrators of torture, by risking their lives to escape the other regimes and get into the US.

A great deal of respect is due to individuals and agencies who impartially draw attention to torture globally, but those who don’t really give a shit for victims of torture, but bring up the subject only when it involves the US, as a means of showing how politically correct and fashionable they are, deserve nothing but contempt.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hail Caesar.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Torture doesn't work, Deano. ...

It's not quite as simple as that. Torture does get information. It also gets false information, and those that use it have no way of being able to tell which information is true and which isn't.

Also, every interrogator in history has believed and will believe that they already know what their victim is guilty of, if they can but get them to confess. It's the disease of interrogators everywhere. So if a person doesn't tell the interrogator what they want to hear, it's "So. He denies it", and twist the thumbscrew a bit tighter. "He must be lying. If he were telling the truth, he would admit it".

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Torture doesn't work, Deano. That, totally aside from any moral objections, should disincline you towards it.

Yes. I know. I said so twice.

How many people read ALL the posts in a thread before hitting "Add Reply"? It would prevent people making the same points that have already been made and make things more interesting.

Torture is very inefficient, but it can generate more timely information, though less accurate.

More accurate information can be gleaned by other methods but they are slower.

I'm not going to change my mind, but if you are wondering why, it's because the very thought of standing alongside someone who equates the CIA with the SS is something that simply makes me queasy. I'd rather stand alongside the torturers than alongside those types of people. They have less conscience and less morality than the torturers. Vermin have more conscience and morality to be honest.

[ 10. February 2013, 11:30: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I suspect that no-one capable of inflicting torture has the slightest interest in guilt or information.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Torture doesn't work, Deano. That, totally aside from any moral objections, should disincline you towards it.
Yes. I know. I said so twice.

How many people read ALL the posts in a thread before hitting "Add Reply"? It would prevent people making the same points that have already been made and make things more interesting.

Torture is very inefficient, but it can generate more timely information, though less accurate.

More accurate information can be gleaned by other methods but they are slower.

And that, as I'm sure you realise, is the #1 drawback to torture: what's the point of 'timely' information that is inaccurate? The '45 minute dossier' was timely and therefore suited Bush'n'Blair's purposes so it was politically convenient although it was inaccurate and bugger all use in the longer term though.

Torture, as you suggest, can only achieve the same ends. The outcome is not intelligence and the procedure is neither intellgent nor civilised.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Torture doesn't work, Deano. That, totally aside from any moral objections, should disincline you towards it.
Yes. I know. I said so twice.

How many people read ALL the posts in a thread before hitting "Add Reply"? It would prevent people making the same points that have already been made and make things more interesting.

Torture is very inefficient, but it can generate more timely information, though less accurate.

More accurate information can be gleaned by other methods but they are slower.

I'm not going to change my mind, but if you are wondering why, it's because the very thought of standing alongside someone who equates the CIA with the SS is something that simply makes me queasy. I'd rather stand alongside the torturers than alongside those types of people. They have less conscience and less morality than the torturers. Vermin have more conscience and morality to be honest.

So you are willing, then, to inflict excruciating pain, permanent physical and psychological maiming, and even death in an effort to get quick access to unreliable and/or false information which is useless in protecting anyone?

You regard this as a reasonable response to threats against safety? And you have no moral problem with this?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In any case, the evidence gained as a result of torture is usually inaccurate.
I agree and I said as much in my first post upthread.

I do not care about the responses against my post. It's "us" vs "them", and I am on the side of "us".

The brutal truth is they will hate us whether we torture them or not. They will kill us for simply not being like them. Thus they have to die first, and we have to extract information from them in any way that works. Torture isn't the most effective tool, but it can be quick and useful. It's a hammer, and it has a restricted utility.

That's they way it is.

Are there any torture methods which you would consider "beyond the pale" deano? Or do you consider that "anything goes"?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not going to change my mind, but if you are wondering why, it's because the very thought of standing alongside someone who equates the CIA with the SS is something that simply makes me queasy. I'd rather stand alongside the torturers than alongside those types of people. They have less conscience and less morality than the torturers. Vermin have more conscience and morality to be honest.

Well, I personally have not suggested this CIA = SS equivalency. In this case, however, it wouldn't matter if I had.

Once again, you're creating a false equivalency. Nobody is being asked to make a choice between "CIA = SS" and "Torture, maim, and kill people to obtain information which has no value."

It's perfectly possible to have a CIA which upholds the US Constitution. It is also perfectly possible to obtain useful, actionable, reliable intelligence without torture.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The very thought of standing alongside someone who equates the CIA with the SS is something that simply makes me queasy.

I also wonder if it's right to compare water-boarding to flailing someone's skin off with a whip and then, after having had a tea-break, flailing their tendons to pieces with a set of chains.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Well, I personally have not suggested this CIA = SS equivalency. In this case, however, it wouldn't matter if I had.

Once again, you're creating a false equivalency. Nobody is being asked to make a choice between "CIA = SS" and "Torture, maim, and kill people to obtain information which has no value."

It's perfectly possible to have a CIA which upholds the US Constitution. It is also perfectly possible to obtain useful, actionable, reliable intelligence without torture.

I agree but it was No Prophet who set up the false equivalency upthread. You seem not to have read it so here it is for you...

quote:
Originally posted by No Prophet:
Here's an interesting quote.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theodor Eicke, SS officer, 01 Oct 1933, as quoted in "In the Garden of the Beasts" by Erikson, as recalled by Rudolf Höss

Tolerance means weakness.... Any pity whatsoever for 'enemies of the State' was unworthy of an SS-man. There was no place in the ranks of the SS for men with soft hearts and any such would do well to retire quickly to a monastery. He [Eicke as formulator of rules for SS concentration camps] could only use hard, determined men who ruthlessly obeyed ever order."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you read "CIA" for "SS", are we really seeing anything different?

So if you are saying No Prophet is wrong then I agree with you. As you say No Prophet has put the SS alongside a democratic insitution designed to protect the innocent. Vile.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano: On the CIA
Hypocrisy and double standards slip down the list of what’s important when people’s lives are at stake.

quote:
Originally posted by SS guy: On the SS
Tolerance means weakness...

quote:

Thus they have to die first, and we have to extract information from them in any way that works.

Any pity whatsoever for 'enemies of the State' was unworthy of an SS-man.

There was no place in the ranks of the SS for men with soft hearts and any such would do well to retire quickly to a monastery.
He [Eicke as formulator of rules for SS concentration camps] could only use hard, determined men who ruthlessly obeyed ever order.

I'd rather stand alongside the torturers than alongside those types of people [who oppose torture]. They have less conscience and less morality than the torturers. Vermin have more conscience and morality to be honest.

So in a way it's you who've made the comparison.
So either that quote actually brings out the 'good' bit of the SS, or No-Prophet has a point.

[ 10. February 2013, 12:29: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

I’m going to go with the NO crowd on this one. Perhaps I’m being naïve sitting in my comfortable house not realising that I’m being kept safe at this moment by people who use torture to stop other horrible things happening. Regardless I just can’t imagine feeling comfortable with torture.

I was also thinking the other day about how useless thought experiments are with this kind of question. The classic being that “there is a bomb planted which, if detonated, will kill hundreds. Torturing one person will give the information needed to stop the bomb. Should we use torture”?

The obvious answer is yes based on the rationale of hurting one terrorist to save lives. But of course in the real world we can’t always be sure where the bomb is, if there really is a bomb, whether the person definitely knows the location, whether they will spill the beans etc. The thought experiment is too simple and doesn’t reflect the messy reality.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No Prophet has put the SS alongside a democratic insitution designed to protect the innocent. Vile.

Again, I have to say: if it was that easy to sort out the innocent from the guilty, we wouldn't need to torture anyone.

The CIA have, quite clearly, tortured innocent people for information they don't have. The only reason why you support this is that the innocent person they tortured is not you, or someone you care about.

No matter what the CIA were originally designed to do, they have become, in part, what they are trying to defeat, with the connivance of the American people and the complicity of the British. The comparison with the SS, startling as it is, should be a reminder that torture is against international law for a very, very good reason.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No Prophet has put the SS alongside a democratic insitution designed to protect the innocent. Vile.
Again, I have to say: if it was that easy to sort out the innocent from the guilty, we wouldn't need to torture anyone.

The CIA have, quite clearly, tortured innocent people for information they don't have. The only reason why you support this is that the innocent person they tortured is not you, or someone you care about.

No matter what the CIA were originally designed to do, they have become, in part, what they are trying to defeat, with the connivance of the American people and the complicity of the British. The comparison with the SS, startling as it is, should be a reminder that torture is against international law for a very, very good reason.

deano, can you try answering a few of the direct questions put to you?

1. Do you acknowledge that the CIA uses torture? (Let's leave the SS aside for now, and get back to the main question.)

2. Do you acknowledge that torture, regardless of who uses it, violates international law?

3. Since you've already acknowledged that torture is "inefficient" (your word, not mine), would you advocate other, more "efficient" forms of eliciting information, and (if you would), what exactly would these consist of?

4. Do you believe that US institutions should follow the law which governs them?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
... Torture is very inefficient, but it can generate more timely information, though less accurate.

More accurate information can be gleaned by other methods but they are slower....

I'm really having a hard time seeing the utility of obtaining incorrect information in a timely manner. All that does is enable bad decisions to be made more quickly.

quote:
... Vermin have more conscience and morality to be honest.

Dude, you just Godwined yourself.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Torture is very inefficient, but it can generate more timely information, though less accurate.

More accurate information can be gleaned by other methods but they are slower.

Putting aside the moral problems, this actually makes torture even less efficient.
Here is the way it works, if one actually gives a shit about the accuracy of the intelligence.
Interrogation yields answer. Answer must be cross-checked for verification.
Every answer must be checked. False answers waste time. False answers waste resources.
Torture does not save time, therefore torture is not faster. If one cares about the accuracy of the information gleaned.
However, as mentioned in the quote in my last post, some interrogators do not care. So, then, how does this make them heroes, old boy?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I've made my points and I'm done. I have no intention of debating this issue. I'm not going to be dissuaded from my position and it is clear that nobody else will be either.

It also makes me ill when I inadvertently catch sight of No Prophet's post equating the CIA with the SS.How many gas chambers has the CIA built?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Is that what you say to Jesus?

There is NOTHING as terrible as 'civilized' men going to war with savages.

[ 10. February 2013, 16:32: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I don't know but about the gas chambers, and in fairness the difference between thousands and millions is vast.
Also they gave one of our local museums some of their gizmos from the 50's.

But if I were using Stare Kiejkuty for ghost detainees, I'd be wanting to examine myself carefully.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I've made my points and I'm done. I have no intention of debating this issue.

Such points as you believe yourself to have made defy logic, but I do applaud your admission that you're not debating.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not going to be dissuaded from my position and it is clear that nobody else will be either.

Refusal to engage with issues raised by others renders dissuasion nearly impossible. Likewise, refusal to mount actual arguments renders your own persuasive powers pretty much nil.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It also makes me ill when I inadvertently catch sight of No Prophet's post equating the CIA with the SS.How many gas chambers has the CIA built?

1. How would we know?

2. Is this a tenet of some new civic religion? "My CIA, right or wrong!"

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How many gas chambers has the CIA built?
How would we know?

I suspect we might find out some day.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How many gas chambers has the CIA built?
How would we know?
I suspect we might find out some day.

I suspect so too, but "some day" is unlikely to be of much comfort to those currently awaiting their next torture session -- particularly if it's some hapless, helpless bloke rounded up because, rather than being an actual terrorist, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I'm not going to apologise for the comparison, so long as its left within appropriate limits. There were no gas chambers in 1934, and the discrimination Jews experienced had just started to exceed that in most other "civilized western" countries.

Are there really enough checks and balances to deal with criminal types of orders from political leaders? Does not appear to be so. There certainly weren't for Maher Arar, whose responsibility for torture rests with the Canadian government.

The point is that the torturers and murderers got their start somewhere. We don't have a crystal ball and cannot predict the future, but if we can see danger signs, should we not compare the actual behaviour of people to today with those from the past, whose future we have seen? And perhaps I am somewhat sensitive about this, having had 7 family in the Wehrmacht, 2 additional in the SS, and one of whom I am certain tortured Poles and Russians given what we know of his unit. This is about programs of governments which lead down very dangerous paths. After torture perhaps we can discuss drones.

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I suspect that no-one capable of inflicting torture has the slightest interest in guilt or information.

I think we need to ask Freud and the Marquis de Sade to answer this one.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I suspect so too, but "some day" is unlikely to be of much comfort to those currently awaiting their next torture session -- particularly if it's some hapless, helpless bloke rounded up because, rather than being an actual terrorist, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Or because he was unfortunate to have his name given up by a person who had no real information but just wanted the torture to stop. That could even happen to deano if he was really unlucky, and it would be okay because it was happening in the name of protecting the innocent, whoever they are.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm not going to apologise for the comparison, so long as its left within appropriate limits.

Speaking for myself, I don't know what there is to apologize for. I'm deeply uncomfortable with drone strikes; I think they render us less safe while driving the populations of those places where they fly nearly mad with fear and suspicion of one another. I'm morally opposed to torture by anyone on anyone for any reason. Even threatening torture is a form of terrorism.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Are there really enough checks and balances to deal with criminal types of orders from political leaders? Does not appear to be so. There certainly weren't for Maher Arar, whose responsibility for torture rests with the Canadian government.

It has seemed to me that the US government has lost some of its moral moorings some time ago, at least with respect to this so-called "war on terror."

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The point is that the torturers and murderers got their start somewhere. We don't have a crystal ball and cannot predict the future, but if we can see danger signs, should we not compare the actual behaviour of people to today with those from the past, whose future we have seen? And perhaps I am somewhat sensitive about this, having had 7 family in the Wehrmacht, 2 additional in the SS, and one of whom I am certain tortured Poles and Russians given what we know of his unit. This is about programs of governments which lead down very dangerous paths. After torture perhaps we can discuss drones.

No prophet, we should all take a lesson from your sensitivities.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

I disagree with deano on torture, but he is absolutely correct on the comparison between the CIA and Nazism.

It is arrant, twenty-four carat, ahistorical, undergraduate, obscurantist bullshit.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No, the CIA are not the SS. But some of them are still evil bastards. Nothing justifies the use of torture.

ETA: The comparison of the CIA to the SS might not be perfect, but it is justified to an extent. So, it is a matter of degree only.

[ 11. February 2013, 06:17: Message buggered about with by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Well perhaps it would be more productive to focus on matters of degree then. Espionage has always had a "distasteful" air to it - no-one likes an informer, traditionally. But most people would accept that some form of intelligence service is a good idea.

First of all, does anyone disagree with this - i.e. is anyone prepared to defence the position that all spying/intelligence gathering is wrong? It would be interesting to hear the argument if so.

Secondly, does anyone want to defend the idea that anything is justified in the name of national security? Even deano seems unwilling to back this one, given that he condemns the SS, at least.

Otherwise... you have to decide... what is acceptable, and what is not. What parameters should an intelligence service work under?

For example, if an agent is in deep cover in a terrorist organisation, and they are planning a minor attack, is it legitmate for the agent to participate in order not to blow their cover?

Or, to take a recent example, is it legitimate for an agent to enter into a relationship with a target in order to win their trust and infiltrate their organisation? Or is this morally wrong?

What is OK and what is not OK?

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

I think that sounds like a great question. We need rules for the game of "make someone scream in pain until they tell us what we want to hear!"

Hey, all you who are proposing things for me to do on camera: watch how this develops. I may be seeking revenge on your sorry asses before too long.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I think that sounds like a great question. We need rules for the game of "make someone scream in pain until they tell us what we want to hear!"

Hey, all you who are proposing things for me to do on camera: watch how this develops. I may be seeking revenge on your sorry asses before too long.

Cough up and we will let it stop.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Have you guys ever read Ecclesiantics?

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Do you really think we haven't? Don't you think this should be where more people have, though?

Ariston, Wearer of the Velodrome Keeper's Fez

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Torture my friends is when we Anglochthulics force the Evos to wear lace when presiding over their Triple Decker Hymn Sandwiches.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

That's not torture, that's Compromise.

Torture is twirling a thurible during a Hymn Sandwich. You can ignore the lace but not the incense.

Or preaching a Calvinist sermon in an Anglo-Cafflick shack. [Snigger]

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Forget that, torture is making the hardline lace-encrusted Anglo-C*******s sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" while coming forward to the communion rail . . . only to find Wee Plastic Cuppies prefilled with grape juice.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As well as being Shrove Tuesday, the Kalendar also commemorates Ss Saturninus and Dativus, who were tortured in Carthage on the orders of Emperor Diocletian because they didn't burn the scriptures when ordered to do so.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

Torture is being expected to stand and sing 6 over-amplified Praise-and-Worship songs and be [Big Grin]

happy, Happy, HAPPY [Big Grin]

to do so.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Torture is being expected to stand and sing 6 over-amplified Praise-and-Worship songs and be happy, Happy, HAPPY to do so.

...and then having to repeat them all over again!!! [Yipee]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Why does torture only ever come up when it involves a trendy target such as the United States?

Torture is intolerable whether carried out by the USA, its proxies, or any of the other numerous countries which perpetrate it - communist, Islamist, Buddhist, post-colonial or whatever.
Probably because our government is quite happy to condemn torture in other countries on our behalf, but will never speak a word of criticism against the US and is generally complicit in torture carried out by the US. In a supposdely democratic society the start of changing that is by publically discussing it.

There's also the issue of rank hypocrisy. You (generic you) don't get to go around calling yourself the "leader of the free world" and trample all over human rights. You don't get to say "in God we trust" (and generally imply you mean the God of Jews and Christians not those dirty mozlems) and not get called on actions that go against Christian teaching.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

Some people might think that liturgy is so boring that it borders (no pun intended) on torture. But I hardly thinks that suffices for the placement of this thread. What us this doing in Ecclesiantics?

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Evidently, someone's never experienced the exquisite joy of hearing a lace-encrusted tat queen's scream when one awakens from their GIN-sodden stupor to a forced viewing (Clockwork Orange style) of liturgical dance (complete with bendy poles!) coupled with Shine, Jesus, Shine.

It's something to savor.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Some people might think that liturgy is so boring that it borders (no pun intended) on torture. But I hardly thinks that suffices for the placement of this thread. What us this doing in Ecclesiantics?

"**** & ***** DAY IN PROGRESS - Things are not what they normally are! Be warned!!!" (Which might have to be spelled H.O.S.T & A.D.M.I.N DAY to be currently readable.) The folks who keep the ship tidy get to have a little fun on occasion.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

I support torturing whoever wrote "Lord, I lift your name on high."

Also whoever came up with "And also with you."

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Perhaps I’m being naïve sitting in my comfortable house not realising that I’m being kept safe at this moment by people who use torture to stop other horrible things happening. Regardless I just can’t imagine feeling comfortable with torture.

The fact that USA embraces torture these days makes me feel less safe than if they rejected torture and treated all prisoners with courtesy. Torture makes enemies who regard the torturers (and their country) as sub-human.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I support torturing whoever wrote "Lord, I lift your name on high."

Also whoever came up with "And also with you."

The peace mid service chat and after church coffee are torture for some of us.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I'm not sure the significance of threads being posted errantly and arrantly during the recent HA party. If that's a sign of the unwantedness of a thread, it's their decision of course.

But seeing as it is still going, I thought I might add a helpful quote from an author who understands some of the nuances and development of such things better than I. I think Carré is right; I should think Godwin's law doesn't apply to what he says either if the comparison is correct, just like statements are not slander if they are true.

quote:
John le Carré, in "A Most Wanted Man", Scribner, New York, 2008, p 88
"In my law school we talked a great deal about law over life", she [German lawyer] said. "It's a verity of our German history: law not to protect life, but to abuse it. We did it to the Jews. In its current American form it licenses torture and state kidnapping. And its infectious. Your own country [United Kingdom] is not immune, neither is mine."

Herein lies the next step of the problem. Once we decide it is okay, how are lines drawn any more at all about any rights? Certainly courts can decide when something is against a constitution, but what about secret military tribunals who may not even disclose the evidence against the tortured, nor even the charges: how does a public court interested in constitutions ever become knowledgeable about secret proceedings?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I support torturing whoever wrote "Lord, I lift your name on high."

Also whoever came up with "And also with you."
The peace mid service chat and after church coffee are torture for some of us.

The latter are avoidable. i) put your head down and pray ii) leave early.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0