It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner

[doG]

I think that we should worry about it because they do it. Is that not reason enough?

 

What does it matter if they do it if torture is an ineffective method for extracting information? We should just pick anyone for the mission with no regard for whether or not they can withstand the enemies methods for trying to extract mission critical information. Heck, maybe we should even do away with the various levels of information classification. Any good ol' boy that's never been in trouble should be good enough to carry top secret plans as long as he promises to keep them secret. Surely he'll keep that promise even if they do something like shoving bamboo splinters under his fingernails, huh?

[DrDNA]

The definition sources you list above vary wildly, so you're still in "if it's anything more than simple confinement, we're gonna slap the "torture" label on it and declare that it is impossible for any such method to produce any positive result." And in that territory you're wrong, if it's true that such methods have produced information that lead to the prevention of further attacks, which is what we've been told (and that's a whole other argument that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of torture).

I'm not in the mode you refer to at all. So your assumption is wrong also.

 

Of course I'm not saying that simple confinement, or anything remotely resembling that is torture and I'm not saying that we should slap a label on everything.

 

What I am saying is that the definitions I quoted were, I believe, intended to stand up to, for example the 'reasonable and prudent man' test which is used in US jurisprudence.

 

I'm no lawyer by any means.

But by that well accepted legal standard, the US, unfortunately, has failed.

 

Well, first of all, we're like libertarians - you get 'em from total anarchists to small government tax dodgers.

 

I myself am a Jeffersonian Libertarian (but not an anarchist).

Live and let live. On that we agree.

 

Anyway, yeah, we don't need any stinkin' numbers DrDNA. We're not arguing absolutist positions here, all of our arguments are supported by the notion that torture works some extremely, small, fractional, measure of time - anything other than zero.

Numbers, "we don't need any stinkin' numbers"?

That's an interesting position.

I'd still like to see them (numbers or data), and I certainly would expect you to have them, to back up your position.

 

It has been my experience that you are generally less visceral (more factual and logical) on most matters, Para.

 

Even if it only worked one time in the history of mankind, then our arguments are valid.

Para, I strongly disagree with you on this particular point.

Seriously, why don't [you] need or even want numbers to support your position?

 

No, I think you must supply the science that says torture will never work, ever, before we should even think about making it illegal for national security's sake.

Ever?

You don't really expect me to swallow that do you?

I like a good argument, better than most, but I ain't goin there....except to say that:

 

Only 2 things are 100% certain:

- the fact that noting is absolutely certain,

-that you and I are going to die; hopefully, later, rather than sooner

 

So, I pass on that one....

 

Even IF we ignore the testimony from people that been tortured or been affiliated with torture (much of which has been presented here by others) for a moment and, even though no one has presented anything even remotely resembling real data or testimony to support of the use of torture to obtain strategic information, I'm simply saying that:

 

1. Torture is a. defined in the Geneva Conv, b. in The UN Conv, c. by US Military Law. This can be taken as is and/or easily interpreted by the 'reasonable and prudent man' test.

2. Torture is clearly illegal by the above laws and conventions that we are a party to.

3. We are a nation founded on the basis and principle of law; laws that were intended to support, among other things,

a. freedom (but not for example freedom to torture),

b. human rights and

c. human dignity.

4. A whole lot of people died and/or suffered so that we could have and maintain # 3 above.

5. Torture flushes 3 and 4 down the toilet, which is not acceptable to me and lot of other people.

[iNow]

Now, why don't you tell us something. If torture is ineffective should our own mission leaders dismiss it as a viable threat from our enemies when selecting personnel for their missions that are to be entrusted with mission critical information? Should they ever be concerned about which members of their team might talk to the enemy if tortured?

You seem to be misrepresenting some peoples positions here... at least, mine. My intent was to show that the data which comes from torture is much less reliable, that torture itself causes us to act against our own values and ideals, and that there are far better ways at obtaining information that do not carry the same costs (the source I've shared twice now more than supports my comments).

 

Either way, your question is still an interesting one. As I've said, the reliability of the information derived from torture is questionable, but people still do it. This is why we prepare our personnel. It's just an extra layer of protection. If they get tortured, there's a chance that they will release secret information. That same chance exists when we torture others... they might release secret information to us. By preparing our personnel to withstand torture, or how to respond to it, we are adding another guarantee on the safety of our information.

 

However, the fact that we prepare our personnel in no way changes the fact that the realiability of data obtained by torture is questionable at best, and that those doing the torturing lose all high ground in any negotiations and they lose in the battle of public opinion. Again, the integrity and reliability of the data is too low for the costs of performing the act. Just because we prepare our personnel how to handle it does not mean that it is a useful interrogation technique, only that we want to take steps to further minimize its effectiveness when those techniques are applied to our own people.

[doG]

You seem to be misrepresenting some peoples positions here...

 

Hmmm..

 

Furthermore, torture is not a reliable technique for extracting information.

 

Looks pretty plain to me, torture is not a reliable technique of extracting information.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

However, the fact that we prepare our personnel in no way changes the fact that the realiability of data obtained by torture is questionable at best...

 

I suspect any data obtained from the enemy is questionable at best. Is there any data available that some data is truly less questionable than other data based solely on how the data is obtained?

Edited January 22, 2009 by doG
Consecutive post/s merged.

[iNow]

See the link I shared in post #58 and again in post #64.

[doG]

See the link I shared in post #58 and again in post #64.

 

I looked at those already but they left me with some questions in my mind. How often is good information retrieved using torture that is never admitted to? How often is bad data retrieved from promise of a reward of some kind for cooperation? I suspect both occur more than we know and it skews the true results either a little or a lot. IMO, the claim that torture does or does not work cannot be substantiated satisfactorily to make a blanket claim that it is not an effective method to extract information. In the end it all comes down to an individuals breaking point. Some will break under torture and others will not. Beyond that I do not believe it could be proven that a majority of individuals will or won't. It would be my guess that most individuals with a low tolerance for pain would yield to torture and for those with an increasing tolerance it would be less effective. That is just a guess though.

[Mr Skeptic]

Now, why don't you tell us something. If torture is ineffective should our own mission leaders dismiss it as a viable threat from our enemies when selecting personnel for their missions that are to be entrusted with mission critical information? Should they ever be concerned about which members of their team might talk to the enemy if tortured?

 

Torture isn't only used to extract information. I've heard of torture being used to extract a confession from someone (inevitably, the confession is used to justify the torture, and possibly also to smear the enemy). Perhaps some of the training is on how to waste the torturer's time by telling them hard to confirm things, or how to remain sane enough to try to escape. Perhaps also as a preventative measure, why torture someone who is trained to withstand it? Maybe the word torture (rather than interrogation) is being used as propaganda, and the training involves training against any interrogation techniques. How long is this training, and is it specifically to avoid divulging information under torture?

 

Oh, and ntps2020 asked about an example of torture extracting information about an imminent threat. My initial search found lots of people arguing about torture, but no specific examples. Anyone care to lend a hand?

[Pangloss]

I'm not in the mode you refer to at all. So your assumption is wrong also.

 

Of course I'm not saying that simple confinement, or anything remotely resembling that is torture and I'm not saying that we should slap a label on everything.

 

What I am saying is that the definitions I quoted were, I believe, intended to stand up to, for example the 'reasonable and prudent man' test which is used in US jurisprudence.

 

I'm no lawyer by any means.

But by that well accepted legal standard, the US, unfortunately, has failed.

 

Okay. And I acknowledge the accuracy of this.

[iNow]

I looked at those already but they left me with some questions in my mind. How often is good information retrieved using torture that is never admitted to? How often is bad data retrieved from promise of a reward of some kind for cooperation? I suspect both occur more than we know and it skews the true results either a little or a lot. IMO, the claim that torture does or does not work cannot be substantiated satisfactorily to make a blanket claim that it is not an effective method to extract information. In the end it all comes down to an individuals breaking point. Some will break under torture and others will not. Beyond that I do not believe it could be proven that a majority of individuals will or won't. It would be my guess that most individuals with a low tolerance for pain would yield to torture and for those with an increasing tolerance it would be less effective. That is just a guess though.

 

 

That's a very fair perspective, and one with which the report I, myself, shared supports in more than a few ways. From page 18:

 

 

Almost no empirical studies in the social and behavioral sciences directly address the effectiveness of interrogation in general practice, or of specific techniques in generating accurate and useful information from otherwise uncooperative persons.

 

However, on that same page, they do later clarify that:

Without a scientific literature or systematic analysis — at least one available in open-source information — practitioners (i.e., “boots-on-the-ground” assets) and policymakers must make decisions on the basis of other sources and considerations. Primary among them are the iconic 17 techniques described in U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, which serves as the model or guide to intelligence interrogations for all the armed forces.

 

Basically, getting a bunch of Psych 101 freshman to come in for a real scientific study on interrogation is hardly ethical or allowable, so we must draw from front lines experience. What strikes me, though, is how intelligently they lean on existing knowledge in these scientific fields, especially as pertains to the process (instead of the technique) of educing information. From page 19:

 

Educing information is most productively envisioned as a process, rather than as an applied set of techniques. Moreover, the context of that process should be viewed broadly, not solely (or even primarily) as an across-the-table interaction between an educer and a source.

 

Many broad fields of study — including psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and communications — offer theories, concepts, methods, and research findings that may inform and further our understanding of the process of educing information from uncooperative sources.

 

 

When discussing methods to increase the subjects motivation to share information, I find it telling that the first one listed is "rapport." It is demonstrated that rapport building is perhaps the single biggest factor in obtaining information from the detainee. Obviously, torture would sabotage any rapport which had been formed. Another fascinating piece of that information is the discussion of "reciprocity." From page 24:

 

There is a powerful — often unspoken — social norm of reciprocity, variously known as “give and take,” a “two-way street,” and “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” People are more likely to give to those from whom they have already received or expect to receive something. This applies not only to material goods, but also to social commodities such as favors and information. Research suggests that people are more likely to respond positively (affirmatively) to suggestions or requests for compliance from someone who has fi rst provided a benefit to them than from someone who has not. Perhaps sources would be more willing to “give” to an educer if the educer has fi rst given something (e.g., special rations, reading material) to them.

 

 

Those are powerful points in favor of less torturous means of information extraction. If you keep reading, however, you will see that they DO ultimately discuss the tactics of fear and coercion, what we've been collectively referring to as torture. From page 25:

 

Research seems to suggest that under certain conditions fear can facilitate compliance; however, it does not adequately address whether fear leads to more accurate and useful information (in, for example, an intelligence interrogation situation). That is, fear may motivate an enemy source to “talk,” but not necessarily to provide accurate intelligence.

 

 

This reinforces the point that I have personally been trying to make throughout this thread. The question is not whether or not information can be extracted by these techniques, but instead how reliable and valid that information will be. They continue the discussion on fear and coercion as follows:

 

Research in social science, particularly in marketing and health education, suggests that the effectiveness of a threat appears to be determined largely by the perceived magnitude of the threat, the recipient’s perceived vulnerability, and the perceived effectiveness of the proposed alternative to the feared outcome.

 

 

One of the greatest challenges I see is that most of these combattants do not fear death or pain. This gets back to preparing our own personnel... It helps them not to fear pain or death, and hence these threats are more or less nullified. The threat only works if it is perceived by the detainee to have a high enough magnitude and worthy of avoidance. Most methods of torture involve pain, and pain thresholds can be greatly increased through training and practice (I recall here many of my own kung fu stories, but those are best for another thread someday, perhaps).

 

The report reinforces my point, and goes further when discussing the motivation of the interrogator when they say:

 

The source must consider the threat credible and must believe that the educer will withdraw it if the source complies. For example, some experienced interrogators have suggested that threatening a source with death is not particularly effective because the source may believe that an educer who is willing to kill him might be willing — even likely — to kill him whether he complies or not. The source’s motivation to comply therefore diminishes.

 

 

More specifically to coercion, they suggest that it can actually make obtaining information from the detainee less likely. Specifically:

 

ocial science research indicates that a perception of coercion can negatively affect the tenor of the relationship between the educer and the source and decrease the likelihood that the source will comply or cooperate. Research both in North America and in Asia (China) has shown that using coercive influence strategies causes targets (or sources, in the context of educing information) to feel disrespected, whereas persuasion strategies communicate respect. Thus, importantly, coercion creates a competitive dynamic that facilitates rejection of the other party’s position where persuasion creates a cooperative dynamic that facilitates greater openness to the other party’s position and productive conflict resolution.

 

 

This point is further reinforced on page 26, where they discuss and actual study done on cadets in Norway. The results are plain:

 

Under conditions that simulate an intelligence interrogation, indirect strategies for eliciting information (i.e., acquiring information through interaction by means other than asking for it directly) may be more effective than direct, highpressure techniques. In one of the few open-source studies on the effectiveness of military “resistance training,” 58 cadets at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy were subjected to a simulated prisoner-of-war exercise. Some had received a pre-training experiential exercise in resisting interrogation, others were given only a pre-training lecture. Perhaps of greatest interest is that the use of indirect interrogation techniques significantly reduced the amount of “prisoner” communication confined to name, rank, military number, and date of birth (from 24% to 0% in the lecture group and from 61% to 5% in the experiential pretraining group). More importantly, the indirect strategy (as opposed to a direct one) also increased the percentage of compromising statements revealed by the “prisoners” from 22% to 37% in the lecture group and from 0% to 15% in the experiential pre-training group (Laberg, Eid, Johnsen, Eriksen, and Zachariassen, 2000).

 

So, despite the relatively small population sample, there is, in fact, data which supports the position for which many of us have been arguing, a position which is also supported by numerous other studies and understandings about the human mind and our reaction to abuse.

 

Now, you may want more data before acquiesing your position on this, but for me anyway, the preponderance of data which I've seen (much of which has been shared here) is more than enough to justify my stance against torture. This data strongly suggests there are far better ways at getting the information, and those alternative methods have the added benefit of not carrying with them the costs associated with torture. The linked article also discusses something called the seven categories of Omega Persuasion Strategies, but I feel this post is already long enough.

 

The abundance of these alternative methods which appear, based on accounts of those on the front lines and with "boots on the ground," to be most effective is why I personally choose to argue against the use of physical coercion and torturous methods.

 

I'll close with three summary bullet points from the link:

 

• The potential mechanisms and effects of using coercive techniques or torture for gaining accurate, useful information from an uncooperative source are much more complex than is commonly assumed. There is little or no research to indicate whether such techniques succeed in the manner and contexts in which they are applied. Anecdotal accounts and opinions based on personal experiences are mixed, but the preponderance of reports seems to weigh against their effectiveness.
  
  
• The accuracy of educed information can be compromised by the manner in which it is obtained. The effects of many common stress and duress techniques are known to impair various aspects of a person’s cognitive functioning, including those functions necessary to retrieve and produce accurate, useful information.
  
  
• Psychological theory and some (indirectly) related research suggest that coercion or pressure can actually increase a source’s resistance and determination not to comply. Although pain is commonly assumed to facilitate compliance, there is no available scientific or systematic research to suggest that coercion can, will, or has provided accurate useful information from otherwise uncooperative sources.

 

 

Thanks for reading.

[DrDNA]

Okay. And I acknowledge the accuracy of this.

 

ROFL

 

For a second, I thought that you were surrendering....

 

Then, I realized what you were actually replying to.

 

 

I'm no lawyer by any means.

 

Very slick.

 

LOL

[iNow]

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear--whether it is true or false--if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

 

Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects--in part--the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

 

To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.

I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength--that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others--even our enemies.

 

~John McCain (2005)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200

Edited January 22, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

ROFL

 

For a second, I thought that you were surrendering....

 

Then, I realized what you were actually replying to.

 

Very slick.

 

LOL

 

No, I was acknowledging your point, which is neither "surrendering" nor was it a backhanded smack. You made a valid point and I felt I owed you an acknowledgment rather than silence.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think the Bush administration set out to "torture" per se, I think that, as was the case with many aspects of this administration, they just pushed the line too far, and they listened to the wrong advice along the way. But when people asked him if he agreed with torture and he said that torture was wrong, he wasn't lying.

 

The media made a big deal about how Obama's inaugural was critical of Bush, but I don't think either Obama or Bush saw it that way. Mistakes were made. That's it, end of story. It doesn't sell books, but it is the way the world works. (Usually.)

[doG]

When discussing methods to increase the subjects motivation to share information, I find it telling that the first one listed is "rapport." It is demonstrated that rapport building is perhaps the single biggest factor in obtaining information from the detainee. Obviously, torture would sabotage any rapport which had been formed. Another fascinating piece of that information is the discussion of "reciprocity."

 

Maybe that's why the "good cop bad cop" routine is effective since the bad cop reinforces the rapport with the good cop :shrug

[ParanoiA]

It has been my experience that you are generally less visceral (more factual and logical) on most matters, Para.

 

Para' date=' I strongly disagree with you on this particular point.

Seriously, why don't [you'] need or even want numbers to support your position?

 

Because my argument is a logical one that rests merely on the notion that torture has worked at some point in human history on some person at least one time - so the method is only as useful as its need. Think on that sentence. To be "needed", it would have to be the ONLY method believed to provide the information required in the time alloted to acquire it AND, it would have to have the "value" to be worth torturing an innocent person. And, I'm not any authority on determining that scenario.

 

I see that the same as I see war. I only agree with war as long as the "value" of the conflict is worth the loss of innocent life - hence why I always require the answer "yes" when asking myself if I'm willing to kill children for this cause. Same with torture. I have to be willing to accept that the person being tortured is innocent. Therefore, the "need" as I've defined it above, would have to apply. When is it worth it to take the chance and torture an innocent person?

 

It's not about naive absolutist idealism, it's about being consistent with my lines in the sand. I can't rule out torture while simultaneously being totally cool with nuking whole civilizations. There's something lob sided and disingenuous about declaring some arbitrary line of horrors. Waterboarding = no, but thousands of dead women and children as collateral damage = perfectly ok. WTF??

 

 

 

Let's say iNow takes a bath in nuclear goo with the help of a mentally crazed doctor Bascule and becomes a super-action hero and kidnaps GWB to have his war crimes trial. Bush is found guilty, (duh!!), and iNow decides to exterminate all republicans as part of the sentence. Only Dr. Bascule has the antedote to disarm iNow's murderous powers, but he's not talking and we have only 15 minutes until execution. That could be one scenario for, doG "The Interrogator", to torture Dr Bascule to save the republicans. Oh wait...that doesn't pass the "value" test does it? Never mind, bad example...

[iNow]

Have you been reading my dream journal again?

[npts2020]

ParanoiA; The reason you don't feel authoritive to name the scenario may be because nobody is. Our operatives are not given torture resistance training so much because anyone worries about them giving up pertinent information as to enable the operative to be able to deal with the situation. Do you think Al-Quiada operatives are not trained in the same methods? While "roughing up the bad guy" for information works great in Hollywood, there is no evidence that anyone can distinguish when it might possibly work in real life. Given this limitation, you are left with routine use of torture or not using it at all, if you wish to have any sort of consistent philosophical position to hopefully win over the hearts and minds of the world with. It has been documented to my satisfaction that methods clearly defined as torture (waterboarding, deaths of healthy individuals while in U.S. or surrogate custody, Abu Graib, etc.) have been used and that the highest levels of our government knew it was taking place and sanctioned and/or ignored it. My only real question is, what is the justification for it (it isn't scientific)?

[Pangloss]

Interesting bit today from the news: Apparently Obama's choice for CIA head declined to call Waterboarding "torture". He said it won't happen on his watch, nor will we torture, but he stopped short of agreeing with Justice nominee Eric Holder in actually declaring Waterboarding to be torture.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50L63F20090122

 

I don't suppose it really matters a whole lot -- the opinions of individuals should not be a determining factor in whether these tactics are used. It should be decided by careful, thoughtful, objective, high level examination of all the facts, then codified and enforced.

[npts2020]

It seems from the interview that Adm. Blair knows full well that waterboarding has been prosecuted as torture by Americans for a very long time now. It is also interesting that he did not elaborate on the "success" of using torture as a method of interrogation. Nor make claims about being a necessary part of our global war on terrorism.

[DrDNA]

Because my argument is a logical one that rests merely on the notion that torture has worked at some point in human history on some person at least one time - so the method is only as useful as its need.

 

But we all are aware of the fact a lot of awful, ugly, terrible things have "worked at some point in human history" to achieve a goal or goals.

 

Those 'ends did not justify the means' either.

[DrDNA]

It's not about naive absolutist idealism, it's about being consistent with my lines in the sand. I can't rule out torture while simultaneously being totally cool with nuking whole civilizations. There's something lob sided and disingenuous about declaring some arbitrary line of horrors. Waterboarding = no, but thousands of dead women and children as collateral damage = perfectly ok. WTF??

 

You are "totally cool with nuking whole civilizations"??

I have always felt that was one of [our] (as a species...as a country's) darkest hours.

 

I was not thinking of that one specifically when I wrote:

awful, ugly, terrible things have "worked at some point in human history" to achieve a goal or goals, but I think that you have brought up a very good one.

However, If we just consider the numbers and the nature of the parties involved (normal citizens, women, children, etc) it is actually a much better example of what I meant by awful, ugly, terrible things, than torture....at least the torture of individuals who are believed to have partaken in some heinous act(s) against society.

[ParanoiA]

You are "totally cool with nuking whole civilizations"??

I have always felt that was one of [our] (as a species...as a country's) darkest hours.

 

I was not thinking of that one specifically when I wrote:

awful, ugly, terrible things have "worked at some point in human history" to achieve a goal or goals, but I think that you have brought up a very good one.

However, If we just consider the numbers and the nature of the parties involved (normal citizens, women, children, etc) it is actually a much better example of what I meant by awful, ugly, terrible things, than torture....at least the torture of individuals who are believed to have partaken in some heinous act(s) against society.

 

Well let's be clear. It's not that I'm "totally cool with nuking whole civilizations" without any qualifiers. It's that I'm ok with retaliatory nuclear attacks on countries that attacked us. If China launched nukes, would we sacrifice our right to respond for the lives of their civilians? Would we refuse to "stoop to their level"?

 

I don't think so. I think we would retaliate. And I think as long as we believe that, then we have some pretty ridiculous ideas of morals and ethics to subsequently draw an arbitrary line before waterboarding.

 

That's why I can't sign on to wholesale dismissal of torture. It's a symbolic argument that makes one feel better as long as one conveniently forgets how spectacularly hypocritical and dishonest it is.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd mostly agree with ParanoiA. It would be hypocritical for us to be opposed to torture because of how wrong it is while allowing for even worse things like war. If we don't want to have torture, it should be because the cost/benefit analysis doesn't add up. In most cases (even nearly all) torture is unnecessary because there are alternatives. In the few cases that torture might be necessary, is it worth the bad reputation or enemy propaganda value we would get for it?

[DrDNA]

It would be hypocritical for us to be opposed to torture because of how wrong it is while allowing for even worse things like war. If we don't want to have torture, it should be because the cost/benefit analysis doesn't add up.

 

OK.

I agree with your position.

But in order to avoid being "hypocritical"and in order to be completely honest with ourselves and everyone else in the world, we should officially state that we are going to torture people as we deem it necessary to serve our needs and meet our objectives.

 

Of course we will also need to withdraw from the treaties and conventions that we have signed and change our own military laws to reflect this official policy.

 

Then, we can let the torturers do what they are paid to do; torture the deserving bastards.

 

The rest of us can merrily go about our way, confident in the knowledge that we are safe from terrorists and other evil people.

And we can be proud that we are doing everything that is necessary to honor and protect freedom, democracy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

After it is brought out into the open and formally sanctioned, MTV could even make a reality show out of it, 'The Real World, Gitmo'; a portion of the proceeds of which could be used to pay down our debt for the 'War on Terror'.

[npts2020]

OK.

I agree with your position.

But in order to avoid being "hypocritical"and in order to be completely honest with ourselves and everyone else in the world, we should officially state that we are going to torture people as we deem it necessary to serve our needs and meet our objectives.

 

Of course we will also need to withdraw from the treaties and conventions that we have signed and change our own military laws to reflect this official policy.

 

Then, we can let the torturers do what they are paid to do; torture the deserving bastards.

 

The rest of us can merrily go about our way, confident in the knowledge that we are safe from terrorists and other evil people.

And we can be proud that we are doing everything that is necessary to honor and protect freedom, democracy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

After it is brought out into the open and formally sanctioned, MTV could even make a reality show out of it, 'The Real World, Gitmo'; a portion of the proceeds of which could be used to pay down our debt for the 'War on Terror'.

 

Come, come now we don't need to do anything so extreme. All we do is redefine torture to be meaningless when applied to us and all-encompassing when applied to them.

[ParanoiA]

OK.

I agree with your position.

But in order to avoid being "hypocritical"and in order to be completely honest with ourselves and everyone else in the world....

 

This post fails to take on the dilemma. I know, it's tough, that's why you keep dodging it. Let's do this again, only let's use Nuclear retaliation as the subject. Here's what you're saying:

 

But in order to avoid being "hypocritical"and in order to be completely honest with ourselves and everyone else in the world, we should officially state that we are going to nuke people as we deem it necessary to serve our needs and meet our objectives.

 

Of course we will also need to withdraw from the treaties and conventions that we have signed and change our own military laws to reflect this official policy.

 

Then, we can let the nuclear weapons specialist do what they are paid to do; nuke the deserving bastards.

 

The rest of us can merrily go about our way, confident in the knowledge that we are safe from terrorists and other evil people.

And we can be proud that we are doing everything that is necessary to honor and protect freedom, democracy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

After it is brought out into the open and formally sanctioned, MTV could even make a reality show out of it, 'The Real World, Nagasaki'; a portion of the proceeds of which could be used to pay down our debt for the 'War on Terror'

 

We can do this with any dilemma of your choosing. It's a great way to dismiss legitimate concerns in order to pick a side of the fence to stand on and put this critical exercise behind you.

 

Sorry, DrDNA, but when I reconcile moral issues I have to take a bit more care, and it starts by auditing honestly. You've responded to our legitimate, apparent conflict of horrors by pretending as if we shouldn't be concerned with it. And you didn't even tell us why.

 

If I'm not supposed to see and question moral disparity between waterboarding and nuclear retaliation, then what exactly serves as the proverbial alarm that alerts one their morals are twisted? Disparity, hypocrisy...tools that point out you're wrong about something. And I'm not one to jump to conclusions my friend.