If someone had information about my missing daughter, but didn't want to share it. I would skin them alive until I got that info.
Question FWDT: If there was a plot to kill your kid, if you had a kid, and there was someone with that info but didn't want to divulge it. To what extent would you go to extract that info? Also, would abiding by your sense of morality be worth the loss of your kid?
from the "admission" of the people justifying the use of torture, it was justified because they got actionable information. that adds so much to the convo. quick yoni find another blog where some guy heard that some other guy tortured another guy, and that the torture yielded some unverifiable results.
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 12-04-2008 at 05:34 PM.
Yep. If it gets actionable intelligence, it's justified.
Oh, and that CIA agent also said this:
"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."
From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
circular logic 101
the same CIA agent that didn't participate and wasn't present?Oh, and that CIA agent also said this:
He said he wasn't present for the waterboarding but, he was present when the guy started singing and said that it was because of the waterboarding that he was talking.
no he didn't. you may have inferred that fact, but the article never makes clear whether the agent was present at all when the terrorist started singing. again, nice try. you used to put up a better fight than this.
If waterboarding works, American interrogators should use it. I don't know, waterboarding just doesn't seem that bad. It sounds a lot better than having my fingernails ripped off. Or getting electrocuted. Clearly waterboarding is a close case, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it.
You gotta balance two things: (1) the extent to which waterboarding actually works, with (2) the extent to which waterboarding inflicts pain on a prisoner.
I still think the gunshot to the knee, Jack Bauer style, is perfectly acceptable in a "ticking bomb" scenario.
Less 24, more reality please.
Yeah, I guess I'm losing interest in you assholes.
now you know how we feel.
Dude, that's precisely what's at stake. Shooting a guy in the knee is clearly illegal. But in a "ticking bomb" scenario, EVERYONE would support the interrogator who shoots the guy in the knee. It's not that farfetched. I'm just trying to show that there is a great deal of nuanced balancing to be done when discussing interrogation techniques. You can't just spit pla udes about America's greatness or the "moral high ground."
But way to ignore my main point about waterboarding, cochise.
No, there is no "ticking time bomb". That only happens to Jack Bauer. There has never been a situation in US history like the situations in 24.
Sorry.
I watched that do entary on US military and intelligence interrogators. Former guys willing to release their iden ies and current guys with voice masks and shadowed, thats sort of stuff.
The one retired guy made a direct reference to the TV show 24 as having no basis in reality and that there has never been any "ticking time bomb" situation where the use of those means of interogation have ever been necessary (to his knowledge, and he was in his senior role since Iran took hostages in the 80s).
So no, those situations and that sort of needed torture is unrealistic and strictly reserved for Hollywood.
When you make a point that isnt based on fictional television shows, I'll be sure to pay attention next time.But way to ignore my main point about waterboarding, cochise.
I'm for whatever WORKS. If it's torture, so be it. If it something else, fine. It would be negligence of the HIGHEST ORDER to NOT use every means imaginable in a ticking timebomb scenario.
Before Sept. 11, there was no "airplanes into buildings" scenario. Doesn't mean it is not plausible.
Thats weird, because NORAD had run multiple tests befre 9.11 happened in anticipation of that exact sort of attack.
Their response time was ridiculously fast and efficent. Something like less than 10 (15?) minutes they had fighters at the wings of any unidentified (hijacked) aircraft.
Took them 45 minutes to even scramble planes on 9/11.
And tell me, when the planes were hijacked, exactly what information does one need to shoot them down? Who cares who it is (at that point)? Scramble and shoot down. Sort that out later.
There are no "ticking timebomb" scenarios. Seriously....Jack Bauer is not real. There is no Jack Bauer equivalent in the real world, either.
24 is fiction.
I'll Just highlight some important thoughts from IR and Legal scholars I think this thread would appreciate
Kim Lane Scheppele, Professor of Law, Political Science and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania;
“Fighting Terrorism With Torture: Where To Draw The Line?: Hypothetical Torture In The "War On Terrorism"”; McGeorge School of Law Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 2005
[*293] The normative force that seems to emanate from the hypothetical case of the nuclear terrorist cannot be invoked as a justification for an actual policy to engage in torture and other abusive interrogation if the hypothetical does not track the real-world problems. To demonstrate this, I will deconstruct the nuclear terrorist hypothetical that has convinced so many that torture is thinkable. Hiding behind this hypothetical is an implicit consequentialist argument that torture would be justified if the consequences of not torturing were serious enough. Torturing one person to save thousands - even hundreds or perhaps only two people - appears justifiable if the balance of consequences in terms of lives saved, taken alone, determines the moral acceptability of a course of action. But the hypothetical involves more than a simple balancing of lives. It makes a series of flawed assumptions about what the potential torturer would know and what torture could accomplish. These assumptions are crucial to assessing whether torture would have the promised consequences. Deconstructing these assumptions and comparing them in a hard-nosed way to what we know about real decisions to engage in coercive interrogation allows us to judge whether the decisions are justified by the moral argument implicit in the hypothetical. Why challenge the hypothetical? Hypotheticals are often used to frame a complicated moral question in a way that makes it easy to grasp. But if hypotheticals are to have the moral force that they are intended to generate, they must provide usable intuitions that are transferable to real-world decisions. The value of hypotheticals depends on the extent to which they track the critical features of the problem that a moral agent actually faces. To argue from a case that does not track the critical moral features of the relevant context disorients both the moral and the legal issues that the hypothetical is designed to illuminate. Taking apart the hypothetical allows us to see more precisely why it is a mistake to use an extreme and imaginary case to develop policy. As I will show, the decision to torture will never, in the end, be simply a judgment about how many lives will be saved if torture is used......
Second, the hypothetical assumes an extraordinary degree of clarity about the situation in which you (now an ins utional "you") find yourself when the question of whether to torture arises. You know with reasonable certainty both that there is a nuclear bomb in the middle of Manhattan and that the bomb will explode and will kill many people absent your intervention. Such certainty may be hypothetically possible, but it will likely never exist. Instead, it is far more likely that you will wonder whether there is a bomb in the first place and, if there is, how dangerous it might be. Third, the hypothetical assumes that the person to be tortured is the one (perhaps even the only one) who knows where the ticking bomb is. The "war on terrorism" being what it is, however, it is highly unlikely that any person faced with the decision to torture will know whether the suspect either has the relevant information or provides the only or the best avenue through which to get the information. Instead, the more likely question will be whether the person to be tortured really knows anything useful at all. Finally, the hypothetical assumes that if the captured person gives you the information after being tortured, the information will in fact be true and useful in defusing the bomb. Yet torture produces results that are highly unreliable. I will challenge each of the elements of the hypothetical in turn, because in the real-world situations in which the use of torture is being considered today, none of the elements that make the hypothetical so persistently persuasive is present, except the hypothetical balancing of lives. I am going to argue that the farther away we get from the hypothetical in a real-world situation, the more reluctant we should be to condone torture, or even to entertain the possibility of it. Even if the hypothetical persuades us that torture would be justified in some extreme cases where many lives would be saved by immediate action, the anti-terrorism campaign has not yet and most likely never will present such a case. As a result, I will argue, the pitched debate [*295] over this hypothetical and its logical entailments obscures rather than identifies what the real choices are in the present situation. We should look instead at the position in which the United States actually finds itself and assess the arguments for and against torture against this background. The arguments for torture, I submit, are not convincing in the real world, however compelling they may appear in the imagined world of the torture hypothetical.
Henry Shue, Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, “TORTURE IN DREAMLAND: DISPOSING OF THE TICKING BOMB” 2006
Thinking that America can use torture sparingly is quixotic
Torture is wrong. But sometimes we feel justified in doing what we know is wrong because the stakes are so very high. So the next question is: is torture so wrong that it is inexcusable no matter how high the stakes are? I will argue that all actual arrangements for torture are inexcusable, in spite of the fact that we can imagine hypothetical cases, like the notorious ticking-bomb cases in which it seems excusable.' Why are imaginary examples like ticking-bomb hypotheticals so badly misleading about how to plan for real cases? They mislead in two different ways that compound the error: idealization and abstraction. Idealization is the addition of positive features to an example in order to make the example better than reality, which lacks those features. Abstraction is the deletion of negative features of reality from an example in order to make the example still better than reality. Idealization adds sparkle, abstraction removes dirt. Together they make the hypothetical superior to reality and thereby a disastrously misleading analogy from which to derive conclusions about reality.
Here, then, is the really bad news. The moderate position on torture is an impractical abstraction-it is torture in dreamland. The only operationally feasible positions are toward the extremes. Gross and I (in 1978)-doubtless because we are moderate and reasonable people-have been trying to have it both ways.25 I-and I leave Professor Gross to speak for him self-was like the recovering alcoholic dreaming of avoiding the extreme of total abstinence through the `moderate' strategy of only a drink or two a night. That is not an option, and the alcoholic has only the extremes between which to choose. In the quarter-century since 1978 we have also learned that there is no moderate position on torture either. Torture is now rampant, and high-officials in the U.S. government are its poster-children. You cannot be a little bit pregnant, you cannot-if you are an alcoholic-have a drink only on special occasions, and you cannot-if your politicians are not angels-employ torture only on special occasions.
US torture is used to justify far more gruesome forms of torture globally, it is reasoned that if the lone superpower cannot maintain its security without torture, smaller states cannot either.The second possibility is the capture of someone who is passive toward both sides and essentially uninvolved. If such a bystander should happen to know the relevant information-which is very unlikely-and to be willing to provide it, no torture would be called for. But what if the victim would be perfectly willing to provide the information sought in order to escape the torture but does not have the information? Systems of torture are notoriously incompetent. The usual situation is captured with icy accuracy by the reputed informal motto of the Saigon police, "If they are not guilty, beat them until they are."13 The victims of torture need an escape not only from beatings for what they know but also from beatings for what they do not know. In short, the victim has no convincing way of demonstrating that he or she cannot comply, even when compliance is impossible. (Compare the reputed dunking test for witches : if the woman sank, she was an ordinary mortal.)
The Alice-in-Wonderland character of the assumption that the use of torture will not be widespread throws into doubt the location of the catastrophe. Gross, along with most people who appeal to the ticking-bomb hypothetical, take it to be beyond dispute that the catastrophe lies on the side of not torturing: we are too squeamish to torture the terrorist who planted the bomb, and the bomb explodes, bringing the catastrophe of death and destruction. One other possibility is that catastrophe lies on the side of undermining the taboo against torture. Then other nations will reason that if the superpower with its thousands of nuclear weapons and high-tech conventional forces cannot maintain its own security without the liberal use of secret torture, they can hardly be expected to defend their security without far more torture. And what currently passes for civilization may then slide backward in the general direction of the eighth century. That too would be a catastrophe, a civilizational catastrophe. I am not predicting a full return of barbarism. Yet it is clear that idealizations that cause the epidemic nature of torture to evaporate from view are no guide for practical action. My honest judgment is that stories that are too good to be true are not true rarely, but false. The ticking-bomb hypothetical is too good to be true-it is torture conducted by wise, self-restrained angels.
Some of the we actually do:
Physicians for Human Rights, Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces, 2005
According to CVT clinicians, mock executions and other situations where death is threatened force victims to repeatedly experience their last moments before death, create a sense of complete unpredictability, and induce chronic fear and helplessness. Victims who were threatened with death speak of feeling a sense that one is already dead. They often relive these near-death experiences in their nightmares, flashbacks, and intrusive memories. Reliving these near death encounters can provoke feelings of intense anxiety that cause victims to act inappropriately in work and family settings and, in more extreme cases, cause injury to themselves. Staff members at CVT have dealt with victims of this sort of torture who have pleaded with torturers to kill them, preferring real death over its constant threat and continued intolerable pain.The use of psychological torture followed directly from decisions by the civilian leadership as well as high ranking military officers, including those in the Executive branch, and their support of decisions to “take the gloves off” in interrogations and “break” prisoners by employing techniques of psychological torture including sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, the use of military working dogs to instill fear, cultural and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and the threat of violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones. These kinds of techniques have extremely devastating consequences for individuals subjected to them and can be just as harmful and are often more long -lasting than physical torture.An internal FBI e -mail do enting incidents observed by agents at Guantánamo states that during the second or third week of February 2004 a detainee was short shackled, the room temperature was significantly lowered, and strobe lights and possibly loud music were used. The detainee was left in this condition for 12 hours, during which time he was not allowed to eat, pray or use the bath room.Psychological torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment can have extremely destructive health consequences for individuals. Short and long -term effects can include memory impairment, reduced capacity to concentrate, somatic complaints such as headache and back pain, hyperarousal, avoidance, irritability, severe depression with vegetative symptoms, nightmares, feelings of shame and humiliation, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Sources with knowledge of interrogation at Guantánamo told PHR that some detainees there suffer from incoherent speech, disorientation, hallucination, irritability, anger, delusions, and sometimes paranoia. Some detainees who have been released from US run detention facilities after being subjected to a combination of psychologically abusive interrogation techniques report that they suffer from depression, thoughts of suicide and nightmares, memory loss, emotional problems, and are quick to anger and have difficulties maintaining relationships and employment. Based on past experience, post traumatic stress disorder is likely to be common.At Guantánamo, detainees’ accounts of forced nudity and sexual humiliation were confirmed by FBI reports. An FBI letter to an Army official states that during late 2002 an agent witnessed a female interrogator at Guantánamo rubbing lotion on a detainee’s arms during Ramadan, when “physical contact with a woman would have been particularly offensive to a Moslem male.” News reports confirmed that the use of female interrogators violating Muslim taboos regarding sex and contact with women occurred at Guantánamo in 2003 as well. These accounts were confirmed to PHR by a source familiar with conditions there. According to the source, in 2003 female interrogators used sexually provocative acts as part of interrogation. For example, female interrogators sat on detainees’ laps and fondled themselves or detainees, opened their blouses, and pushed their breasts in the faces of detainees, opened their skirts kissed detainees and if rejected, accused them of liking men, and forced detainees to look at pornographic pictures or videos. Although the use of female interrogators appeared to decline in 2004, a source told PHR that humiliation and violation of cultural and religious taboos, including forced shaving, persisted.
So, the 1993 attack on the WTC wasn't real? The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building wasn't real? The bombs that blew up trains in Matrid -- were they real?
Is the phrase "ticking" that you object to? Is it the size of the bomb? Help me understand.
Don't bother with this guy. He took the least relevant part of my post--the Jack Bauer "ticking bomb" scenario--and decided to go after it "because 24 is fiction." OK, I admit it, 24 is fiction. So the what? Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's unbelievable. In fact, most good fiction needs to be believable.
But none of this changes the hypothetical. If you were presented with a "ticking bomb" scenario--and the guy you had in custody knew vital information about that "ticking bomb"--wouldn't you do anything to extract that information? I sure as would. Does anyone really think a "ticking bomb" scenario is out of the realm of possibility?
As a practical matter, it's probably not necessarily to codify any exception for a "ticking bomb." Hopefully the interrogator will just act on his instincts, thereby averting a catastrophe, and a grateful nation will see to it that there will be no prosecution for this heroic act of patriotism.
Do all people who beleive we are evil actively attempt to kill Americans?
This thread is where Yoni and the "pro-torture" people always fail:
They assume that when I say "torturing is against our long term interests because it makes us look bad" I am worried about the opinion of current "terrorists".
I am not. I have repeatedly said that I am not.
Yet, a lot of short-sighted conservatives continue to distort this position, in the hopes that most people are too stupid to recognize the distinction between current murderous thugs and future murderous thugs.
They seem to be mired in the thinking of a bygone era, in which enemies are conveniently labeled and line up in formal armies with uniforms that can be quantified, categorized, and killed.
They cannot adapt to the new reality of more diffuse movements based on ideas even though the Cold War was won without killing every communist in the world and very clearly parallels our current conflict.
We are not fighting people. We are fighting an idea. YOU CANNOT SHOOT AN IDEA.
Let me say that again:
You cannot shoot an idea with bullets.
We didn't "shoot" communism, we discredited it, and it went away as a widely held idea.
The weapons of idea warfare are manifold, and chief among them is moral authority. We won our Cold War with it, and we will win this war if we are smart enough to use it, Yoni's insistance that we abandon it for short-sighted gains aside.
A) We need to deal with the current murderous thugs before we can be assured of having the opportunity to deal with future murderous thugs.
B) I doubt future murderous thugs will inform their interrogation practices by what we do to current murderous thugs. (although, I'll grant you this, they'll make idiots like you believe our actions motivate them)
We committed some of our greatest atrocities during WWI and WWII; both wars in which the United States of America was viewed as the saviors of the world.The weapons of idea warfare are manifold, and chief among them is moral authority. We won our Cold War with it, and we will win this war if we are smart enough to use it, Yoni's insistance that we abandon it for short-sighted gains aside.
Not when they have proxies willing to do it for them.
As I have said before you simply do not seem capable of truly comprehending the ultimate nature of our current conflict.
If you cannot understand the nature of the conflict, you cannot construct effective strategies for that conflict.
If our actions in dealing with current murderous thugs create more future murderous thugs, would those actions be effective?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
