Clear Evidence Waterboarding Works (but may still be a bad idea)

[bascule]

Torture seems to be grossly inefficient, but successful.

 

Other techniques are also successful with a lower rate of false positives, or at least that's what I gather from the people experienced in this matter who have been testifying.

 

John Kiriakou seems to be arguing the same angle as Pangloss in that it was successful in the instance of Zubaydah. However, Kiriakou at least conceeds waterboarding is torture.

 

It's the morality angle that I call BS on. I would torture the hell out of somebody if I thought they had information about my son, were he to be kidnapped, and I don't know many parents who wouldn't.

 

And when the person you're torturing doesn't actually know anything but feeds you false information for the sole purpose of ending his torture? You've both tortured an innocent person and wasted valuable time.

[Pangloss]

Call it counterspin...

 

Then you admit that you're deliberately misrepresenting my position. Got it.

 

 

Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin had himself waterboarded and concluded: waterboarding is torture.

 

Former CIA operative John Kiriakou defended the utility of waterboarding while conceeding: it is torture.

 

Former U.S. Navy instructor Malcolm Wrightson Nance says: "Waterboarding is torture, period"

 

Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, a judge on the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, maintains: waterboarding is torture.

 

All perfectly valid opinions, and you're welcome to post them. I acknowledge their posting and simply point out that other opinions also exist.

 

I am allowed to express my opinion on this subject, and you're NOT allowed to lie about what I said.

 

 

You're not exactly finding sources who argue it isn't torture, much less sources who themselves have undergone waterboarding. Instead you've taken a neutral position, ostensibly for the purpose of dodging the moral issue entirely.

 

What I did ostensibly is reopen the issue in my mind. What you feel I did was dodge the moral issue. I'm okay with you saying that people shouldn't dodge the issue. I'm NOT okay with you saying that I've done so. You don't know what's in my heart and mind, and it's wrong for you to attack me in this manner. You initiated that attack with no provocation, it's unwarranted, it's in violation of board policy, and it's a moral wrong. And you know it.

 

 

Because you're effectively sidestepping the moral repercussions of waterboarding at the same time you defend its use as an interrogation technique.

 

You're wrong. Once again you deliberately misrepresent my position.

 

 

You think torture is an issue of political correctness? Wow...

 

I never said that.

 

 

Pangloss, I point out specific flaws in your reasoning, and you recoil with "You're clearly being rude towards me" (ad hominem), "Bascule distracts and deflects" (ad hominem), "politically correct rhetoric from Bascule" (ad hominem)

 

Your argumentation is consistently riddled with logical fallacies, and furthermore, even in cases where you argument contains a textbook example of a logical fallacy, it takes me some ten posts of back and forth before you'll even admit it.

 

Can you improve the substance of your arguments, rather than constantly attacking me as a person?

 

Bascule, I point out specific flaws in your reasoning, and you respond with "you really meant ____", and "you actually just said ____". For me to point these things out is NOT ad hominem, it is RESPONSE to ad hominem.

 

Your argumentation is consistently riddled with logical fallacies, and furthermore, even in cases where your argument contains a textbook example of a logical fallacy, it takes me some ten posts of back and forth and STILL you will never even admit it. (At least I admit it when I make those mistakes.)

 

I've not attacked you as a person, though I have attacked your ridiculous and counter-productive arguments. Can you improve the substance of your arguments, rather than constantly attacking me as a person?

[Dak]

how is torture different from prison/the threat of prison? either way, you're doing something nasty to someone or threatening them as a punishment or as coersion.

[john5746]

how is torture different from prison/the threat of prison? either way, you're doing something nasty to someone or threatening them as a punishment or as coersion.

 

Try both of them for a couple of days and come back and inform us.

 

Is it your contention that one success trumps all the failures?

 

I'm speaking only for myself, but if my back is against the wall and it may avoid a terrible outcome, then a long shot is better than no shot at all.

 

Torture is not a good thing, I think we all agree. While our stance as a nation should be not to torture, I can see myself doing just that to obtain timely information in an emergency. Does that make me a monster? Well, I'm still thinking on that, but pacifists cannot survive without someone willing to do violence for their security.

 

IMO, the bad thing about torture is when it irreparably harms the individual. You cut off his fingers, pull out his teeth, poke out his eyes, keep him in solitary until his brain is mush, then say "Oh sorry about that, you really didn't know anything". Waterboarding, if done in a reasonable matter, shouldn't bring about this effect. Try it and consider the information as plausible, that is better than nothing.

[Pangloss]

IMO, the bad thing about torture is when it irreparably harms the individual. You cut off his fingers, pull out his teeth, poke out his eyes, keep him in solitary until his brain is mush, then say "Oh sorry about that, you really didn't know anything". Waterboarding, if done in a reasonable matter, shouldn't bring about this effect. Try it and consider the information as plausible, that is better than nothing.

 

A perfectly reasonable argument, IMO. I'm sure it will be countered with points about psychological after effects, and that's a reasonable point as well, but psychology is an inexact science flooded with incalculable variables. Can waterboarding permanently harm someone? It seems likely that it can. But it seems to compare favorably with other forms of coercion, including some that are currently deemed acceptable.

 

Nice post.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That depends on whether you think you'd suffer more from missing a finger or suffering some sort of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I suppose that varies from person to person. (Then again, you might get the PTSD from the act of removing the finger, so I guess it's a lose-lose.)

 

The better question to ask is "are there alternatives that don't cause any permanent harm at all?" Several people have implied that there are, but nobody's really delved into that.

[mooeypoo]

That depends on whether you think you'd suffer more from missing a finger or suffering some sort of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I suppose that varies from person to person. (Then again, you might get the PTSD from the act of removing the finger, so I guess it's a lose-lose.)

 

The better question to ask is "are there alternatives that don't cause any permanent harm at all?" Several people have implied that there are, but nobody's really delved into that.

 

Also.. how far do you go with permanent damage?

 

Is "Trauma" permanent damage? Some say it is.. and how "far" a treatment is considered trauma? Some people can be traumatized by the mere stay in a jail-cell without seeing sunlight for a few days, while others have a different "threshhold".. both would have *permanent* damage.

 

I agree with the attempt but I just think that in these cases, we still must deal with individual examples. It depends on the situation, the type of person, the method used...

 

~moo

[Dak]

Try both of them for a couple of days and come back and inform us.

 

torture is worse than prison, but why? what's the actual difference between torture and non-tortuous punishment?

[iNow]

torture is worse than prison, but why? what's the actual difference between torture and non-tortuous punishment?

 

Here's one possible response:

 

One (torture) causes intentional damage whereas the other (imprisonment) causes collateral (unintended) damage.

[Dak]

depends how you define 'damage'. is loss of freedom not 'damage'?

 

elsewize, we're just talking corporeal v non-corporeal punishment.

[john5746]

torture is worse than prison, but why? what's the actual difference between torture and non-tortuous punishment?

 

Sorry for my earlier flippant response. That might be one point I am trying to get at as well. In the case of prision in a war, I would think the reason for it is to stop the soldier from fighting you and as a possible trade for your own soldiers. It is understood as part of war, like getting shot on the battlefield. Torture is seen as unjustified application of pain. Applying pain to someone just for the fun of it.

[Pangloss]

Wouldn't that definition allow ANY application of force to a subject so long as no pleasure was taken from the act? I'm not sure I agree with that definition.

[Dak]

no worries john.

 

the reason i asked is that both torture and punishment seem pretty much the same to me: doing or threatening mean things to people to control them and make them do what you want. the only difference seems to be magnitude.

 

I was just thinking that 'how far should we go' might be a better question than 'should we torture'?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think a difference is that the punishment is well-defined, whereas the torture is more of a "we will hurt you until you do what we want" kind of thing. Punishment is more about justice, and torture is more about trying to override someone's free will.

[Dak]

words, mate. when you threaten someone with imprisonment if they theive or rape, you're trying to 'override their free will' and make then act as you wish them to act, even if they don't want to.

[iNow]

From a psychological learning theory standpoint, punishment doesn't tend to change behavior all that much (relative to variable schedule positive reinforcement, for example). As a general rule (of course there are exceptions), punishment tends to teach people how to avoid getting caught more than it teaches them to avoid the action altogether.

 

[/tangent]

 

 

As has been said above, how far we go really depends on the situation and person in custody. Many of us here, though, want our society to strive more toward an ideal where we don't ourselves become the evil against which we're fighting.

[JohnB]

Many of us here, though, want our society to strive more toward an ideal where we don't ourselves become the evil against which we're fighting.

Hear hear. Didn't someone once say "If you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy."?

[Pangloss]

Do you feel more like Al Qaeda since 2001?

[iNow]

Never mind.

[Phi for All]

It's the morality angle that I call BS on. I would torture the hell out of somebody if I thought they had information about my son, were he to be kidnapped, and I don't know many parents who wouldn't.

I think it's not only possible, but absolutely imperative to hold your government to a higher standard of morals when it comes to war. Obviously a parent of a kidnapped child is completely out of his element in a way that doesn't apply to soldiers and their conduct in war. Kidnapping is a random and improbable occurrence for civilians; being captured is a distinct possibility for a soldier.

 

American soldiers used to be held to higher morals in war and young men flocked to join out of patriotism. Today, patriotism isn't earned, it's expected.

Do you feel more like Al Qaeda since 2001?

Absolutely.

 

I felt less like an American because my leaders shunned the opportunity to gather the rest of the world to our side just when their sympathies were with us. I always liked the "America leads by example" image I was raised with.

 

I felt less like an American because, after failing to get the man who orchestrated the attack against us, my leaders decided to wage war against a different enemy, one that had no ties to our attacker. Like a big fat bully who can't catch his little tormentor so he punches the guy he *can* catch. I hated those types growing up.

 

More like Al Qaeda? My leaders tell me this war is about justice against the savages, our only means to keep ourselves safe from their ever-increasing threat. We try to kill everyone, not just soldiers, because every casualty leads to victory and you never know who might bring about your downfall. My leaders tell me God is on our side but this isn't a war about religion, even as they bomb churches and mock the enemies faith. And, of course, my leaders also feel that the ends they seek justify any means, so torturing thousands of prisoners and sifting through the hundreds of thousands of bits of information they gibber at their interrogators to find a few nuggets of truth (outdated as those might be) is justified in their minds.

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like this whole approach to conflict is one big False Dilemma. My leaders are trying to tell me I have no other choices and they've been telling me this for a lot longer than the present administration has been in charge.

[Pangloss]

I felt less like an American because my leaders shunned the opportunity to gather the rest of the world to our side just when their sympathies were with us. I always liked the "America leads by example" image I was raised with.

 

I agree with this, though I don't think it makes us more like Al Qaeda. Less like the people we purport to be, though, definitely.

 

 

I felt less like an American because, after failing to get the man who orchestrated the attack against us, my leaders decided to wage war against a different enemy, one that had no ties to our attacker. Like a big fat bully who can't catch his little tormentor so he punches the guy he *can* catch. I hated those types growing up.

 

Hmm, I don't think I can go along with that one. I think we attacked Iraq because of a misguided and poorly reasoned belief that Iraq was the root cause of a significant number of problems in the Middle East, not out of frustration or impotence or random flailing about in our anger.

 

And what you're saying seems to me to be inconsistent with any published analyses I've read (though I certainly haven't read them all!), such as Bob Woodward's three books about the Bush administration. And Woodward is certainly no friend to Republicans or Bush!

 

 

More like Al Qaeda? My leaders tell me this war is about justice against the savages, our only means to keep ourselves safe from their ever-increasing threat. We try to kill everyone, not just soldiers, because every casualty leads to victory and you never know who might bring about your downfall.

 

I've never seen any indication of an intent or policy to kill non-combatants in the war on terror. There have been many non-combatants killed, but so far as I know that was not the intent, nor were statements made expressing such a desire. Or am I misreading you somehow?

 

 

My leaders tell me God is on our side but this isn't a war about religion, even as they bomb churches and mock the enemies faith.

 

Ditto the above, I don't believe that to be the case. Churches bombed due to incidental damage, certainly, but not due to any ill intent towards the Muslim faith. Just never seen any indication of this at all.

 

 

And, of course, my leaders also feel that the ends they seek justify any means

 

We nuked Baghdad?

 

 

, so torturing thousands of prisoners and sifting through the hundreds of thousands of bits of information they gibber at their interrogators to find a few nuggets of truth (outdated as those might be) is justified in their minds.

 

Ok, they do this, but IMO you're equating us with Al Qaeda on such a level that any reasonable person would have to include all criminal investigators in the civilized world.

 

I realize you don't agree, but let me ask you this: If there had not been any waterboarding would your opinion be any different? And if it isn't, is that really a fair generalization, or would it be more accurate to say that they simply screwed up on waterboarding?

 

 

I feel like this whole approach to conflict is one big False Dilemma. My leaders are trying to tell me I have no other choices and they've been telling me this for a lot longer than the present administration has been in charge.

 

A perfectly reasonable point of view, IMO.

 

I empathzie with a lot of what you're saying here, and I can understand where you're coming from. I guess I just don't see that fine a line between right and wrong. I think we have to bash these things out and figure out where the lines are.

[iNow]

I guess I just don't see that fine a line between right and wrong. I think we have to bash these things out and figure out where the lines are.

You either allow yourself categorically to engage in these practices, or you do not. That's where the lines are.

[Phi for All]

I agree with this, though I don't think it makes us more like Al Qaeda.

That's why I prefaced the statement with, "I felt less like an American" instead of "More like Al Qaeda".

 

Hmm, I don't think I can go along with that one. I think we attacked Iraq because of a misguided and poorly reasoned belief that Iraq was the root cause of a significant number of problems in the Middle East, not out of frustration or impotence or random flailing about in our anger.

Well, *I* think differently. I think the misguided and poorly reasoned beliefs stemmed from the pressure to catch Bin Laden. We couldn't find him so we tried to turn that quest for retribution on someone else. The analogy holds for me.

I've never seen any indication of an intent or policy to kill non-combatants in the war on terror. There have been many non-combatants killed, but so far as I know that was not the intent, nor were statements made expressing such a desire. Or am I misreading you somehow?

They'd never get away with making it policy. Instead we are constantly reminded that anyone can be a suicide bomber. While true it also lends itself well to justifying collateral damage. Very convenient.

Ditto the above, I don't believe that to be the case. Churches bombed due to incidental damage, certainly, but not due to any ill intent towards the Muslim faith. Just never seen any indication of this at all.

I don't remember the name of the mullah who took refuge in the mosque right after the invasion and made us destroy the building to get him out. It was a ploy (and a despicable one) but we sure took the bait. And although the military changed the name of Operation Infinite Justice after protests, the damage was done. Why use such a phrase stolen from the Koran if you didn't want to inflame the Muslims?

We nuked Baghdad?

Forget the strawman, Dorothy.

 

Ok, they do this, but IMO you're equating us with Al Qaeda on such a level that any reasonable person would have to include all criminal investigators in the civilized world.

Equating? No, you asked if I felt we were *more like* Al Qaeda. Let's leave the goalposts where they are.

I realize you don't agree, but let me ask you this: If there had not been any waterboarding would your opinion be any different?

No, there was talk of inhumane torture before there was talk of waterboarding.

And if it isn't, is that really a fair generalization, or would it be more accurate to say that they simply screwed up on waterboarding?

Where's the generalization? I simply pointed out that torture of prisoners makes me feel more like Al Qaeda. I guess I'll make generalizations when we start beheading them and taping it.

I guess I just don't see that fine a line between right and wrong. I think we have to bash these things out and figure out where the lines are.

This is not conventional warfare, even though we often treat it as such. We invaded a country to stop terrorists not even from that country. I think if you want to stop Al Qaeda's recruitment then non-terrorists need to perceive us as a better alternative. We need to demonstrate that we're better humans.

[Pangloss]

You either allow yourself categorically to engage in these practices, or you do not. That's where the lines are.

 

I agree, but IMO the basis for defining "these practices" has been validly called into question.

 

 

 

They'd never get away with making it policy. Instead we are constantly reminded that anyone can be a suicide bomber. While true it also lends itself well to justifying collateral damage. Very convenient.

 

I don't remember the name of the mullah who took refuge in the mosque right after the invasion and made us destroy the building to get him out. It was a ploy (and a despicable one) but we sure took the bait. And although the military changed the name of Operation Infinite Justice after protests' date=' the damage was done. Why use such a phrase stolen from the Koran if you didn't want to inflame the Muslims? [/quote']

 

These strike me as singular examples which clearly can be looked at in other ways and which don't seem to be evident of the whole picture.

 

 

Forget the strawman, Dorothy.

 

Actually my question about nuking Baghdad was not a strawman because it was in response to this statement:

 

And, of course, my leaders also feel that the ends they seek justify any means

 

I'm not trying to nit-pick you, I just think your statments come from an exaggerated position. However:

 

I think the misguided and poorly reasoned beliefs stemmed from the pressure to catch Bin Laden. We couldn't find him so we tried to turn that quest for retribution on someone else. The analogy holds for me.

 

That's fair enough, I have a high regard for your opinion in general and I can understand how you came to it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

This is not conventional warfare, even though we often treat it as such. We invaded a country to stop terrorists not even from that country. I think if you want to stop Al Qaeda's recruitment then non-terrorists need to perceive us as a better alternative. We need to demonstrate that we're better humans.

 

I do agree with this.

[iNow]

This is not conventional warfare, even though we often treat it as such. We invaded a country to stop terrorists not even from that country. I think if you want to stop Al Qaeda's recruitment then non-terrorists need to perceive us as a better alternative. We need to demonstrate that we're better humans.

 

I do agree with this.

 

I also agree. However, Pangloss, isn't your position (in a very fundamental way) internally inconsistent? You opened this thread suggesting that waterboarding (and implicitly other forms of torture) should probably go "back on the list of approved measures." How can we torture someone and pretend to be leading by example... pretend to "demonstrate that we're better humans?"