It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner

[DrDNA]

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.

 

I didn't realize that this was a torture vs nuclear advocacy thread or that I would be asked to choose one over the other.

I'm an advocate of neither.

As I stated previously, the use of nuclear armaments was, in my opinion, one of humanity's darkest hours.

 

Possessing the ability to exterminate ones' own species and possibly all life on ones' own planet is an extremely shameful and pitiful state to be in.

 

Furthermore, as you suggest, it very well may be hypocritical to permit nuclear weapons to exist yet disallow torture, and our morals may be twisted.

 

So I might agree with you on that point, with at least one caveat:

In an attempt to be completely objective, I must admit that the threat of nuclear retaliation and/or annihilation seems to work (so far at least); on the other hand, as many previous posts have documented, torture seems to have not been so successful.

 

Again, plenty of people have presented evidence and testimony that support the position that torture may not achieve the desired objective(s).

 

In contrast, the pro-torture camp's primary evidence seems to be along the lines of "well if it didn't work, everybody wouldn't be doing it".

You must admit, that's an awfully weak, nearly inconsequential, argument.

Still waiting in anticipation for the documented evidence in support of the effectiveness of torture..........

 

Since I'm either to dumb to know better, a curmudgeon or maybe because I have an urge to humor both you and myself (or all 3), I'll go ahead and step on your torture vs nukes landmine:

 

So, IF one were to step back from the situation and address your Torture vs Nuclear Weapons comparison from a purely legal standpoint:

-The conventions, treaties and US military laws that ban torture are listed in my previous posts.

-What convention(s) have we been a party to, what treaty(s) have we signed, and/or what US law(s) prevent us from possessing and/or using nuclear weapons?

 

It very well may be hypocritical.

However, at least we admit the truth to ourselves and the rest of the world about our position(s) on nuclear weapons.

[ParanoiA]

I didn't realize that this was a torture vs nuclear advocacy thread or that I would be asked to choose one over the other.

I'm an advocate of neither.

As I stated previously' date=' the use of nuclear armaments was, in my opinion, one of humanity's darkest hours.[/quote']

 

For one, it isn't a torture vs nuclear advocacy thread, but rather a torture vs nuclear advocacy argument. One of many arguments presented in this torture thread.

 

For two, I missed your point earlier in the thread about not supporting nuclear weaponry. So, obviously your logic is consistent here. Not sure I agree, but I respect your view.

 

In contrast' date=' the pro-torture camp's primary evidence seems to be along the lines of "well if it didn't work, everybody wouldn't be doing it".

You must admit, that's an awfully weak, nearly inconsequential, argument.

Still waiting in anticipation for the documented evidence in support of the effectiveness of torture..........[/quote']

 

This is true. I still stand on my point that it matters little for my particular argument, but on the other hand, it's still a necessary variable to complete and would likely strengthen our don't-chunk-torture-out-the-window-wholesale arguments. I will see what I can find, but I have no special skills here other than google and something tells me you've probably already combed through that channel.

 

 

Let me present my argument another way. Should we ban using spears as combat weapons? They're entirely ineffective in today's modern warfare and it's doubtful there's any evidence that would suggest they're more effective than guns, tanks, artillery..etc. Even though they have no place in our future other than a museum, I'll bet we haven't banned them. It doesn't matter if it's ineffective, it's silly to rule out on a wholesale basis.

 

I know, I know, the moral component is not even in the same ball park, I get that. But these repeated arguments about torture's effectiveness is getting old. I'm not advocating torture. I'm advocating retaining torture, just as we retain the potential to use spears - simply because it's silly to rule out such things on a wholesale basis - as if there could never be a turn of events that might drive us back to it.

 

I will, however, concede that there could be tactical advantage politically to legally remove torture from the books. And I think another poster, earlier in the thread, made the point that if the situation were really that dire and torture was really believed to save the day, it's not a stretch that we'd break those rules. And perhaps it's best if it's done this way. Of course, that compliments my argument that it's a technique that should not be ruled out. And it compliments Skeptic's argument on cost/benefit analysis.

[iNow]

Very academic this thread has become. The fact is that at least 99% of the time there is a better method than torture with fewer costs and higher success potential. Ergo, it's not a big problem to go that one extra tiny little step and say, "Nah... that's just something we don't do." In taking that last tiny little step, we gain the benefit of world respect and trust, the consistency of holding to our values as a nation/culture/people, and we lead by example for others to follow, all because we accept the fact that there are better ways and hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

The fact that there one day MAY be a chance that torture COULD help us in some arbitrary and non-probable event is hardly an argument in its favor when the data shared in this thread repeatedly and explicitly demonstrates (without any counter evidence or supported opposition) that its effectiveness is questionable and its costs high.

[npts2020]

ParanoiA; I accepted your proposition of being ok to use torture in the case of nuclear holocaust. You, however, avoided my question of why we should not use the same justification to use torture as standard operating procedure?

[iNow]

npts - I'm not sure you and ParanoiA are on the same page. If I understand correctly, his position is that it's inconsistent and inherently hypocritical to be okay with a nuclear retaliation, but stand against and dig our heels into the ground when discussing torture. Unless I'm mistaken, he was not suggesting that using torture is okay if nuclear holocaust is on the line. He's saying that the fact that we argue against torture, but most of us are okay with nuclear response makes our values seem inconsistent.

 

However, that argument is also debunked since the goal of nuclear holocaust is death and fear, and both of these objectives are met every time a nuclear device is used. However, the goal of torture is the extraction of information, and that is hardly successfully consistent, fails often, and has many associated costs.

 

In other words, the output of nuclear strike is pretty much guaranteed, but the output of torture is questionable at best.

[ParanoiA]

Thanks iNow, you have expressed my position accurately, and with a fraction of the verbiage. And your point is taken too. And I still have to dig up "effectiveness" - I haven't forgotten.

[Mr Skeptic]

Very academic this thread has become. The fact is that at least 99% of the time there is a better method than torture with fewer costs and higher success potential. Ergo, it's not a big problem to go that one extra tiny little step and say, "Nah... that's just something we don't do." In taking that last tiny little step, we gain the benefit of world respect and trust, the consistency of holding to our values as a nation/culture/people,

 

Yes, that is what I meant when I said we might discard torture based on a cost-benefit analysis. I know that a cost-benefit analysis is done on a case-by-case basis, but we can also do a cost-benefit analysis on the whole shebang, whether to torture at all given the small benefits and large political/moral costs.

 

An additional danger to torture is that it is better at extracting a "confession" of what we want to hear, than necessarily the truth. Torture would only be of use if the information could be verified, and then only if the subject could be broken. On the other hand, it could provide some bad intel. Eg if someone were to suspect that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and during the torture process the subject figured that out (due to the questioning), then he might make up a story to fit those suspicions. If he were to remember a drug hideout or something suspicious-looking and say it was being used for the weapons, an investigation would say that there was suspicious activity going on there, and that might be seen as confirmation. Due to the sheer amount of false stories, some invented story might stick. Or if the people in charge of the torture wanted, they could generate any type of intel they wanted.

 

Another problem is potential abuse. If someone were to be wrongly arrested, then rather than own up to their mistake, they could torture a confession out of him. Likewise with political enemies. It would be quite difficult and costly to make sure such abuse does not happen if torture is allowed.

[DrDNA]

Let me present my argument another way. Should we ban using spears as combat weapons? They're entirely ineffective in today's modern warfare and it's doubtful there's any evidence that would suggest they're more effective than guns, tanks, artillery..etc. Even though they have no place in our future other than a museum, I'll bet we haven't banned them. It doesn't matter if it's ineffective, it's silly to rule out on a wholesale basis.

 

If an adversary is dumb enough to bring a spear to a tank fight, he deserves what he has coming to him.

Stupidity in such situations is self limiting and, therefore, should not be banned.

[npts2020]

For one, it isn't a torture vs nuclear advocacy thread, but rather a torture vs nuclear advocacy argument. One of many arguments presented in this torture thread.

 

For two, I missed your point earlier in the thread about not supporting nuclear weaponry. So, obviously your logic is consistent here. Not sure I agree, but I respect your view.

 

 

 

This is true. I still stand on my point that it matters little for my particular argument, but on the other hand, it's still a necessary variable to complete and would likely strengthen our don't-chunk-torture-out-the-window-wholesale arguments. I will see what I can find, but I have no special skills here other than google and something tells me you've probably already combed through that channel.

 

 

Let me present my argument another way. Should we ban using spears as combat weapons? They're entirely ineffective in today's modern warfare and it's doubtful there's any evidence that would suggest they're more effective than guns, tanks, artillery..etc. Even though they have no place in our future other than a museum, I'll bet we haven't banned them. It doesn't matter if it's ineffective, it's silly to rule out on a wholesale basis.

 

I know, I know, the moral component is not even in the same ball park, I get that. But these repeated arguments about torture's effectiveness is getting old. I'm not advocating torture. I'm advocating retaining torture, just as we retain the potential to use spears - simply because it's silly to rule out such things on a wholesale basis - as if there could never be a turn of events that might drive us back to it.

 

I will, however, concede that there could be tactical advantage politically to legally remove torture from the books. And I think another poster, earlier in the thread, made the point that if the situation were really that dire and torture was really believed to save the day, it's not a stretch that we'd break those rules. And perhaps it's best if it's done this way. Of course, that compliments my argument that it's a technique that should not be ruled out. And it compliments Skeptic's argument on cost/benefit analysis.

 

How can these comments be interpreted in any other way than torture may be acceptable under some circumstances? Given that it has been conceded that nobody can accurately identify those circumstances, why not apply it universally in the "War on Terror"? If it is acceptable in some cases, why not all?

[Mr Skeptic]

If it is acceptable in some cases, why not all?

 

You keep saying that, but I don't understand where you are getting that idea. We nuked Japan, how come we don't drop a couple nukes whenever there is a war? The police shot a suspect, should they shoot every suspect? Do you not realize that some cases are different from others, and different actions are considered acceptable depending on the specific circumstances?

[ParanoiA]

Uh, just for the record, I do believe police should shoot every suspect.

[The Bear's Key]

In an attempt to be completely objective, I must admit that the threat of nuclear retaliation and/or annihilation seems to work (so far at least)

Wrong-O.

 

If true, who'd on Earth care if Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc should possess nuclear weapons? It'd be as simple as Iran could nuke Israel, who in turn could nuke Iran. A self-perpetual deterrent. And presto! The faulty reasoning of mutually assured destruction.

 

Heck, on that basis let's give all countries an arsenal of nukes. Please don't lose sight of who is cheerleading these faulty ideals.

 

Interestingly, the same people whose most cherished/boasted idea of problem-solving has resulted in a nuclear arms stockpile that can obliterate the world many times over, are the same who pride themselves in the "solutions" which involve death (war, capital punishment, etc), harm (torture, injury), or fear.

 

I'm not very impressed with their problem-solving. More like creating demand for a product. Anything that invites enemies and retaliation sentiment is bound to ensure the profitability of the war contractors in that line of business. Supply and demand. No business can exist without profits, and I'm sure none are too eager to toss aside billions in the name of peace.

 

It's such twisted mindsets who dream up the official use of torture, and who pay certain A.M. radio or such pundits high money to advocate their positions and craft it to sound logical/effective.

Edited January 31, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[npts2020]

You keep saying that, but I don't understand where you are getting that idea. We nuked Japan, how come we don't drop a couple nukes whenever there is a war? The police shot a suspect, should they shoot every suspect? Do you not realize that some cases are different from others, and different actions are considered acceptable depending on the specific circumstances?

 

Well, presumably the reasons we nuked Japan for went away (otherwise we would have kept doing it) and have not reappeared. The supposed reasons for using torture have not gone away. When the police shoot someone there is a review process (we can argue about its thouroughness and efficacy but there exits one) whether the suspect was pointing a gun at him or if he shot a fleeing suspect in the back. Sometimes cops are brought to account for inappropriate actions. Who has been reviewed and held to account anyone for torturing in the name of America? I am very well aware that cases vary to the extreme and that different situations require different solutions. Those who argue in favor of torture (sometimes) cannot define a clear situation or set of rules for where it will work. Therefore, I don't see how you can rule out the possibility of using it in any situation where there is even the remotest chance that a given detainee (virtually anyone picked up in a battle or raid of suspected hideout) might have that one piece of needed information to prevent "imminent" disaster. What you completely fail to see is that if you allow it in some circumstances, you do allow it in virtually all circumstances since nobody can meaningfully define circumstance to begin with.

[Pangloss]

Uh, just for the record, I do believe police should shoot every suspect.

 

Oh you do not. You're a softie, we know the truth.

[ParanoiA]

Oh you do not. You're a softie, we know the truth.

 

I deliberately left out the smilie just to make you guys wonder. I should have known I ain't foolin' nobody.

 

 

----------------------------

 

I am striking out though on finding anything scientific on torture effectiveness. I just get links to articles that say it's ineffective, but nothing that attempts to approximate an objective analysis. And, of course, it's like looking for articles that support the moon landing - you search on "moon landing truth" and you get pages about the moon landing hoax. Apparently there's just not alot of incentive for someone to sit down and write about how true something is.

 

That said, I won't pretend as if that means torture is effective and no one feels like writing about it. I'm quite sure it's a thing of the past. Retaining the method, in the way that I'm arguing, would almost certainly never get exercised. Well, about as soon as spears become the modern weapon of choice, anyway.

[iNow]

I am striking out though on finding anything scientific on torture effectiveness. I just get links to articles that say it's ineffective, but nothing that attempts to approximate an objective analysis.

 

Have you yet reviewed this link that I've shared a few times already? You can use the table of contents to go right to the section which interests you.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

[ParanoiA]

Have you yet reviewed this link that I've shared a few times already? You can use the table of contents to go right to the section which interests you.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

 

Sorry iNow, I went to your post #42 to revisit those links and totally missed your others.

[npts2020]

I deliberately left out the smilie just to make you guys wonder. I should have known I ain't foolin' nobody.

 

 

----------------------------

 

I am striking out though on finding anything scientific on torture effectiveness. I just get links to articles that say it's ineffective, but nothing that attempts to approximate an objective analysis. And, of course, it's like looking for articles that support the moon landing - you search on "moon landing truth" and you get pages about the moon landing hoax. Apparently there's just not alot of incentive for someone to sit down and write about how true something is.

 

That said, I won't pretend as if that means torture is effective and no one feels like writing about it. I'm quite sure it's a thing of the past. Retaining the method, in the way that I'm arguing, would almost certainly never get exercised. Well, about as soon as spears become the modern weapon of choice, anyway.

 

You will have a very hard time finding anything conclusive to support using torture in any circumstances (I am not saying the info isn't out there but that a lot of people have tried to get to the bottom of this question and haven't found it). The best I have seen in probably over 20 books read on the subject is anecdotal that it might have worked in a given situation, all other evidence is from Hollywood. You are in a large majority of those who believe it is effective under some circumstances. I am glad you at least see the point that nobody is able to define those circumstances meaningfully enough to be useful.

[DrDNA]

 

Heck, on that basis let's give all countries an arsenal of nukes. Please don't lose sight of who is cheerleading these faulty ideals.

 

You have taken the whole statement out of context.....i.e., taken the bone and run away with it.

[The Bear's Key]

You have taken the whole statement out of context.....i.e., taken the bone and run away with it.

Well you were trying to be completely objective, a good thing. I apologize for coming off as if you posted in support of it, which obviously you were just attempting to be fair in your representations. Maybe I took it out of context, but looking now didn't find where specifically you meant this. In any case, your posts are well thought out and I do enjoy reading your contributions.

[DrDNA]

Wrong-O.

 

If true, who'd on Earth care if Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc should possess nuclear weapons?

I care.

 

OK.

Let me be more specific.

It *seems to have worked so far when those possessing the nukes are not ruled by insane dictators and/or rulers hell bent on starting WW3.

[The Bear's Key]

I care.

 

OK.

Let me be more specific.

It *seems to have worked so far when those possessing the nukes are not ruled by insane dictators and/or rulers hell bent on starting WW3.

That is exactly my point. In nations like Russia or China, such a leader being placed into top government is really not such an impossibilty.

 

I also have the same views with anything that grants leaders certain powers. For example, it's a mistake to even partially curb our rights in the name of security or to protect from threats, because if the wrong leader got into office, things could quickly go sour and irreversible.

 

One more thing about so many nukes in the world, even in the hands of stable nations. Gotta wonder how Murphy's Law plays into that situation?

[DrDNA]

That is exactly my point. In nations like Russia or China, such a leader being placed into top government is really not such an impossibilty.

 

I also have the same views with anything that grants leaders certain powers. For example, it's a mistake to even partially curb our rights in the name of security or to protect from threats, because if the wrong leader got into office, things could quickly go sour and irreversible.

 

One more thing about so many nukes in the world, even in the hands of stable nations. Gotta wonder how Murphy's Law plays into that situation?

 

Just like every other physical phenomenon, given enough time, even improbable events WILL occur.

Edited February 3, 2009 by DrDNA

[The Bear's Key]

Just like every other physical phenomenon, given enough time, even improbable events WILL occur.

Yes. Unless the variables aren't in place. It's likely healthier to promote that instead of shrugging and hinging all bets on mutually assured destruction.

 

And I don't mean you, btw