Bush vetoes torture ban

[swansont]

No, it was empirical data from an established expert in the field. And you haven't established that it didn't work "99 times" -- that's anecdotal, a popular assumption based on a politically-correct meme, from someone who is NOT an expert in the field.

 

At any rate, I said it was evidence, I never said it was proof. Don't change the subject just because you don't like the evidence.

 

What I had said was this:

 

It becomes a question of what constitutes evidence/proof. If I claimed that I can psychokinetically affect the flip of a coin I can provide this evidence: it worked every time the coin came up heads. Is that proof that it works?

 

Cherry-picking data is generally not considered evidence in science. It is in law, so you have to decide which standard you are going to use.

 

i.e. you haven't established what definition of evidence you are using. If we are using the scientific definition, your "evidence" falls short. 99 was just an example; one positive data point with an unknown number of negatives is anecdotal from a science perspective. The source of the information isn't being challenged here, nor is the veracity of it. As far as the number of negatives, don't shift the burden of proof — it's your claim that this method works, so it's up to you to provide the information.

 

The issue is that there is no "control" with which one may make a comparison. It's impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of the method simply by pointing an instance where it yielded information. Because if you don't do that, all one must do is find a single instance of giving someone a pudding-pop and having them cooperate, and then, by your analysis, giving pudding-pops "works" as an interrogation technique. In the coin-flipping example you compare it to what happens randomly, according to chance, to see if there is an effect. So, in this case, you must establish what constitutes "working." Useful information every time? One time in two? One time in ten?

 

 

 

And please, stop playing the politically-correct card. It's a strawman and a red herring.

[bascule]

a popular assumption based on a politically-correct meme

 

Just curious, what identity group is that meme targeting (torture victims?) and how specifically does it relate to their identity, and if it isn't targeting a specific identity group, what definition of political correctness are you using?

 

And please, stop playing the politically-correct card. It's a strawman and a red herring.

 

I think this one can be attributed to a simple diction error.

 

I, for one, eschew political correctness, but apparently I don't by the definition Pangloss is using.

[doG]

So a prisoner of the "war on terror" shouldn't be considered a POW? Is that why the US congress doesn't officially declare war anymore, to avoid those pesky treaties?

 

Who exactly would they declare war on? That's been the whole problem with the war on terror. There's no country or other entity to declare war against but the very act of declaring war changes how some of the laws are applied because certain things are allowed during wartime that wouldn't be otherwise. IMO, there's a precedent setting legal case in there somewhere.

[ecoli]

Who exactly would they declare war on? That's been the whole problem with the war on terror. There's no country or other entity to declare war against but the very act of declaring war changes how some of the laws are applied because certain things are allowed during wartime that wouldn't be otherwise. IMO, there's a precedent setting legal case in there somewhere.

 

which implies that terrorists don't have the same rights as soldiers from a state?

[John Cuthber]

Political correctness has nothing to do with this. We should be talking about scientific correctness.

Having obtained some sort of data from one prisoner by torture the authorities may have come to the conclusion that torture works. If so then they would be duty bound to torture all the other prisoners to try to gain further data.

Lets make that clear, if the people who conducted this torture in the first place thought it worked they would have repeated it with all the prisoners.

 

However we only heard of one success.

If they prison authorities didn't wanrt to admit to using torture they would have had to keep quiet about how they got the data.

They didn't keep quiet so they clearly don't have a problem with admitting torturing their prisoners.

If they got information from more than one prisoner they would, for whatever reasons they told the world about the first case, have told the world that torture worked on more than one occasion. However they did not.

It seems reasonable to deduce that it only worked in one case but was tried in many cases (however many prisoners they had).

 

At best it has a very poor success rate.

Is it worth losing the moral high ground for this?

In particular; does the fact that the USA uses torture against people from other nations (and "other faiths") encourage those of other nations or other faiths to atack the USA out of revenge on their "brothers" and if so, is the small amount of unreliable information obtained worth the risk of producing more terrorists?

[iNow]

McCain was on 60 Minutes last night. Interesting his response when he was asked the question on torture. What is really telling is the length of time it took him to respond.

 

See for yourself at 06m15s into the following:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3920199n

[Mr Skeptic]

[...] torture doesn't work.

 

Well, it depends. It does "work" if you want to get people to talk, but the data you get is extremely unreliable. You'd need to verify everyting that was said. A group with a pre-agreed response to torture would be hard to verify. A clever person could get you running in circles for quite a while.

 

In the case of the war on terror, you could define torture "working" if it reduced the terrorist threat. If instead it simply increases the number of people who hate America but does little for procuring useful, factual information, then it doesn't work in that context.

[iNow]

That definition of working seems pretty ... uhmmm... hmmm.... let's just say it lacks clear and consistent parameters.

[Pangloss]

I reviewed the topic you refered to. It said things like "Composition fallacy.

 

It would be composition fallacy if I said it constituted proof. It's only evidence. But it IS evidence, and calling it composition fallacy is just a way of ignoring this evidence because you don't like what it says.

 

 

If you take the much more plausible view that they tortured many people to get one item of data then you have evidence that, generally, it doesn't work.

 

But that's an assumption based on facts not in evidence. Very convenient if you have an ideological axe to grind, but when trying to get at the truth, not so much.

 

 

Whether democrats or republicans are better people for running your country doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the fact that torture, at best works badly, and is inhumane.

 

I tend to agree, but of course that's just my personal opinion, not an objective fact.

 

 

This reference gives a reasonable definition and would be viewed as authoritative by most people.

http://www.who.int/hhr/Convention_torture.pdf

"‘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.’"

That definition would include "waterboarding".

 

That's an opinion, not an objective fact. I don't need an education, John Cuthber, and the fact that you think I need an education rather than recognizing that the problem here is getting people to agree on common ground is why we (society) keep having a problem with this and haven't agreed and found common ground.

 

Do you want to stop torture, or do you want to grind an ideological axe? Choose.

 

 

The US Army Field Manual specifically states that torture 'elicits unreliable information.'

 

That's not proof either, but more importantly, as I said above, it's a different subject. I haven't made the claim that torture works. I'm saying coercion may work. And we know that's the case, objectively, otherwise police would never interrogate suspects. Which is also why I say that "torture doesn't work" is just a politically correct meme, it doesn't reflect an objective measurement.

 

Put another way, if we state for the sake of argument that (a) torture doesn't work, and (b) coercive interrogation works (which seems to be the commonly accepted set of "facts"), then we're basically saying that there is some sort of demarkation between torture and coercion, with the line of demarkation being what works (versus what doesn't work).

 

Is that really likely, though? Isn't it more likely that there are forms of torture that do work, but we won't use them for moral reasons, and forms of coercion that probably don't work (so we don't use them) even though they're politically acceptable? Isn't that the more likely conclusion?

 

So people need to get off the high horse of "torture doesn't work" -- it's just political correctness. What matters is (a) what works, and (b) what's morally acceptable. We need to determine waht those two things are, not sit around singing songs and dancing around the problem.

 

 

The issue is that there is no "control" with which one may make a comparison.

 

You should be ashamed of this statement, pretending that qualitative research methods don't exist just to make me look bad. Unbelievable. You want me to stop "playing the PC card", how about you treat me with a little respect instead of rudely and abusively (and dishonestly) dismissing a valid argument?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You should be ashamed of this statement, pretending that qualitative research methods don't exist just to make me look bad. Unbelievable. You want me to stop "playing the PC card", how about you treat me with a little respect instead of rudely and abusively (and dishonestly) dismissing a valid argument?

The assume good faith rule applies on SFN, too.

 

If you want this argument to remain civil, please play your part in it as well.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

It would be difficult to get strong scientific evidence of the statement :'torture does not work.' After all, what scientist would ethically carry out the experiment?

 

However, there are encyclopaedias of experience on the subject covering literally hundreds of cultures that have used torture. When the torture is used to elicit information, the accumulated experience strongly indicates that the information gained is not reliable.

[Pangloss]

McCain was on 60 Minutes last night. Interesting his response when he was asked the question on torture. What is really telling is the length of time it took him to respond.

 

See for yourself at 06m15s into the following:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3920199n

 

That's not a fair assessment. I saw this myself -- McCain was asked point-blank whether waterboarding constituted torture, and he responded INSTANTLY with a "yes", going on to IMMEDIATELY point out that we convicted Japanese interrogators after WW2 on the basis that they used waterboarding. I thought it was one of the most powerful arguments against waterboarding that I'd heard to date.

 

He went on to talk at length about the importance and difficulty of defining torture, but for you to suggest that he was being equivocal on torture is utterly unwarranted, and pure partisanship on your part.

 

No objective person could have possibly looked at that interview and concluded that McCain is equivocal on torture. Only someone who has a specific, partisan goal in mind (like, oh I don't know, voting for Obama?).

 

(That's where I'd end with an ellipses, but I don't hide behind those. Hint, hint.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's not a fair assessment. I saw this myself -- McCain was asked point-blank whether waterboarding constituted torture, and he responded INSTANTLY with a "yes", going on to IMMEDIATELY point out that we convicted Japanese interrogators after WW2 on the basis that they used waterboarding. I thought it was one of the most powerful arguments against waterboarding that I'd heard to date.

 

That's sort of an appeal to tradition, although I think I'm bending the definition there. In any case, is it really proof of the "torture" status of anything to say that we called it torture before? Times and definitions change.

 

In other words, McCain's argument is another way of just saying "[insert important figure here] says it's torture!"

 

(Not that I disagree that waterboarding is torture -- I'm being devil's advocate here. Any argument is fair game.)

[iNow]

That's not a fair assessment. I saw this myself -- McCain was asked point-blank whether waterboarding constituted torture, and he responded INSTANTLY with a "yes", going on to IMMEDIATELY point out that we convicted Japanese interrogators after WW2 on the basis that they used waterboarding. I thought it was one of the most powerful arguments against waterboarding that I'd heard to date.

Dude... seriously... chill. That was PRECISELY my point. The comment about timing was to reinforce how crystal clear the issue was in the mind of McCain, and I respect him for it.

 

I'm not too sure what prompted you to go off on me like that, but it's probably my fault.

 

 

 

He went on to talk at length about the importance and difficulty of defining torture, but for you to suggest that he was being equivocal on torture is utterly unwarranted, and pure partisanship on your part.

 

No objective person could have possibly looked at that interview and concluded that McCain is equivocal on torture. Only someone who has a specific, partisan goal in mind (like, oh I don't know, voting for Obama?).

 

(That's where I'd end with an ellipses, but I don't hide behind those. Hint, hint.)

 

See above. I'm laughing out loud right now, and I feel somewhat bad because it's definitely at your expense. That was not my intention.

[doG]

which implies that terrorists don't have the same rights as soldiers from a state?

 

That's hard to say. There are members and non-members of the Geneva Conventions. Do non-signatories have the same rights as member states? While some terrorists are also citizens of member states there are some that have been stripped of their citizenship. If, as an individual, they are not a citizen of a member state, do they and should they have the same rights as signatories to the Conventions? If so, should groups like Al-Qaeda and Hamas be expected to also grant their prisoners the same rights as provided for in the Conventions? The Geneva Conventions are treaties aren't they, with an expectation that all parties will grant each other's citizens the same rights as they expect for their own?

[Pangloss]

To Pangloss

 

It would be difficult to get strong scientific evidence of the statement :'torture does not work.' After all, what scientist would ethically carry out the experiment?

 

However, there are encyclopaedias of experience on the subject covering literally hundreds of cultures that have used torture. When the torture is used to elicit information, the accumulated experience strongly indicates that the information gained is not reliable.

 

Great, maybe it's more than a PC meme, then -- I'm willing to admit it if I'm wrong about that. Let's hear the evidence you say doesn't exist but really does (??).

 

But that's torture, not waterboarding. You have to connect the two -- politically correct assumptions aren't good enough. I'm actually kind of surprised at you, given the way you fight that sort of thing in the GW threads. But it's cool, I respect where you're coming from.

[iNow]

Shoot with a laser, not a flame thrower, friend.

[Pangloss]

That's sort of an appeal to tradition, although I think I'm bending the definition there. In any case, is it really proof of the "torture" status of anything to say that we called it torture before? Times and definitions change.

 

In other words, McCain's argument is another way of just saying "[insert important figure here] says it's torture!"

 

(Not that I disagree that waterboarding is torture -- I'm being devil's advocate here. Any argument is fair game.)

 

Thanks for that, I appreciate someone trying to see it from my pov. That was my reaction as well -- that it was a strong argument, but it was, in the end, just his opinion (which in fairness to McCain is what he'd been asked for by the interviewer -- his opinion). It didn't constitute an answer to my underlying question (which I think this thread would go a lot better on -- if people realized that I'm simply asking a question that nobody here has an answer to).

 

Regarding my irked respones to swansont above, I wasn't mad in this thread until he said that, but I'm sorry if I got carried away with that response. I just think it's unfair to act like there's no such thing in science as qualitative evidence. I just spent three days in a doctoral course in research methodology and sat there for HOURS listening to an expert lecturing on that very point.

 

 

Dude... seriously... chill. That was PRECISELY my point. The comment about timing was to reinforce how crystal clear the issue was in the mind of McCain' date=' and I respect him for it.

[/quote']

 

See above. I'm laughing out loud right now, and I feel somewhat bad because it's definitely at your expense. That was not my intention.

 

Ugh. I apologize, iNow, I guess I'm so used to jumping on your case that I didn't think to step back and take a closer look. (And I guess I'm feeling a bit surrounded in this thread.) Sorry about that.

[bascule]

a popular assumption based on a politically-correct meme

 

I'm somewhat annoyed you haven't responded.

 

I think the "politically correct" meme in question is that torture is inexcusable under any circumstances. Under that sort of "politically correct" scrutiny, the neocons have responded and the answer is that torture is necessary to keep the country safe:

 

 

Pour water up someone's nose to prevent 9/11? Sounds good to me!

 

I'm not really an absolutist, even when I speak in those terms. When I say torture is inexcusable under any circumstances, I'm lying. There are certainly circumstances under which torture can be condoned! As an example, let's say Mr. Evel Diablo has placed a bomb at the center of the earth which unless it can be stopped will blow up the entire world and kill everyone and everything (except for bacteria, those guys are hardier than us mammals), and only he knows the secret code that will defuse it. We have only hours to live... will I happily sign off on having the world's top interrogators do whatever it takes to get the secret code out of him? Sure! If we don't do whatever it takes to get the information out of the guy... we lose everything... our lives, civilization, the Earth, humanity... and if we do, well we might lose everything, but at least there's a chance.

 

Those feel like awfully similar stakes as to what the neocons in the White House and their cackling cohorts and network of spinmeisters would have us believe about their reasoning behind torture. (lulz not really that's just a strawman but it's a rhetorical one so just keep reading) I'm deeply worried about the US economy and the Iraq War's effect upon it. As for terrorists? I couldn't care less.

 

I'm sorry if some people on the "torture is wrong" side started making excuses about the efficacy of torture in procuring information, but that's playing right into the neocon line.

 

Torture is wrong. It doesn't matter if it procures information. It doesn't matter if it stops terrorists. If we torture, we're the terrorists.

[SkepticLance]

I totally agree with bascule when he says that torture is wrong. It does not matter if it worls or not. It is just plain wrong.

 

As to its efficacy - here is what the Washington Post says :

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html

[Pangloss]

I'm somewhat annoyed you haven't responded.

 

I think the "politically correct" meme in question is that torture is inexcusable under any circumstances. Under that sort of "politically correct" scrutiny, the neocons have responded and the answer is that torture is necessary to keep the country safe:

 

 

This conversation from my perspective (by all means correct me if I'm reading you wrong):

 

Pangloss: This evidence seems to suggest that waterboarding may not be torture and it may produce results. If it's torture it's not acceptable, but I see this evidence that it may work and more than a few people who say it isn't torture. Don't we have to consider that?

 

Bascule: Why do you keep saying torture works and that it is a good thing?

 

And you wonder why I seem to define political correctness differently from you?

[PhDP]

It certainly looks like torture, which is enough to cause problems to many people. I'm sure it's going to be seen as another act of arrogance of the Bush administration.

[bascule]

And you wonder why I seem to define political correctness differently from you?

 

Call that spin if you want, but it's certainly not political correctness by any definition I am aware of.

 

"Waterboarding" is spin too, and I'm glad to see the mainstream media picking up on a more apt description: simulated drowning.

[swansont]

So people need to get off the high horse of "torture doesn't work" -- it's just political correctness. What matters is (a) what works, and (b) what's morally acceptable. We need to determine waht those two things are, not sit around singing songs and dancing around the problem.

 

 

 

 

You should be ashamed of this statement, pretending that qualitative research methods don't exist just to make me look bad. Unbelievable. You want me to stop "playing the PC card", how about you treat me with a little respect instead of rudely and abusively (and dishonestly) dismissing a valid argument?

 

No, as was pointed out, it's scientific correctness. You still haven't given an objective definition of what "it works" means.

 

Asking you to define your terms is not disrespect, and is not rude nor is it abusive. How about addressing that, instead of lashing out with a whole bunch of insults?

[Pangloss]

You still haven't given an objective definition of what "it works" means.

 

That's not a true statement' date=' swansont. The definition of "it works" was given in the very first post of that thread, which was that in that specific case waterboarding produced information that lead to lives being saved.

 

Now that I've answered your question (again), how about you admit that scientific evidence can be qualitative as well as quantitative, swansont? You said I wasn't presenting evidence [i']because I didn't have a control[/i], which is incorrect.

 

"Waterboarding" is spin too, and I'm glad to see the mainstream media picking up on a more apt description: simulated drowning.

 

I think opponents of waterboarding are going to have a problem with the word "simulated". But it would make no difference to me.