Is torture OK if it gets results?

[BioBeing]

Following the relase of the torture memos the other day, Cheney is now pressing for release (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009571.stm) of some other CIA stuff that will show that waterboarding produced "success".

And it was misleading, he said, because the documents did not include those demonstrating that harsh interrogation delivered intelligence "success".

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is that they put out the legal memos... but they didn't put out the memos that show the success of the effort," Mr Cheney told Fox News.

So, is torture OK if one gets useful information from it? Is it ever valid?

And even if Cheney could show that waterboarding did get reliable information once, what would that say about the other n times when it did not get reliable information...

Why can't we just lock up the war criminals already?

[Pendaric]

Thing is, when someone will say anything to get the torture to stop, that's precisely what they will say. Anything they think will make it stop, whether it's accurate or not.

Pragmatically, I would doubt the accuracy of information gleaned in such a way.

If you could be sure that the information acquired in such a manner would be 100% accurate, then torturing one person to prevent the deaths of potentially thousands is justifiable, in my opinion. If torturing one ringleader of the plot would have prevented 9/11, then hand me the pliers and the heated tongs.

[BioBeing]

Thing is, when someone will say anything to get the torture to stop, that's precisely what they will say. Anything they think will make it stop, whether it's accurate or not.

Pragmatically, I would doubt the accuracy of information gleaned in such a way.

If you could be sure that the information acquired in such a manner would be 100% accurate, then torturing one person to prevent the deaths of potentially thousands is justifiable, in my opinion. If torturing one ringleader of the plot would have prevented 9/11, then hand me the pliers and the heated tongs.

The last bit counters your first though. Pragmatically, as you say, all info is suspect. 20/20 hindsight cannot be applied. You would have tortured 20, 100, 1000 people, send all your agents off on wild goose chases and 9/11 might still have happened anyway.

[Pendaric]

That's why I put the caveat in of guaranteed reliability. I appreciate you can't get that, but if you could, I could live with the morality.

[dug_down_deep]

No. It's not ok. It's evil.

[tjakey]

To deliberately brutalize another human being on pure speculation is to abandon your own humanity. The tortured may be guilty of a crime, but the torturer is absolutely guilty.

[Ray Moscow]

If there were good evidence showing that torture produced reliable intelligence, then we'd have a moral dilemma to deal with.

AFAIK, there is no such evidence, and therefore there's no dilemma. It's just wrong, both morally and practically.

[alien billie]

Thing is, when someone will say anything to get the torture to stop, that's precisely what they will say. Anything they think will make it stop, whether it's accurate or not.

Pragmatically, I would doubt the accuracy of information gleaned in such a way.

If you could be sure that the information acquired in such a manner would be 100% accurate, then torturing one person to prevent the deaths of potentially thousands is justifiable, in my opinion. If torturing one ringleader of the plot would have prevented 9/11, then hand me the pliers and the heated tongs.

Ah, but unfortunately the terrorist we’ve caught won’t confess. Never mind, we’ve got his family in custody. Would you mind getting to work with the pliers on his children, please? After all, there’s thousands of lives at stake, and many of them are children too. Lucky you can ‘live with the morality’.

And of course, you allude to pragmatism too. Well, even taking into account that torture information is unreliable, you’re still ignoring the wider cost. Torture breeds terrorists: it sows the seeds of future atrocities. You’d be saving lives now at the cost of who knows how many future lives. Ever seen The Power Of Nightmares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_nightmares)? According to this documentary, Al Qaeda’s intellectual dogma was developed in response to, and in spite of, the torture various spiritual leaders received at the hands of the Egyptian police back in the fifties.

[Matty]

Torture you? Thats a good, thats a good idea, like that one.
http://images.google.ca/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1215898/article_images/mr.blondepreparestotakealittleofftheside.jpg&usg=AFQjCNFCX10Yllg7dxYW-B3GseIKQhJJRA

and that copper didnt give up Mr Orange now did he? :)

In short it depends but in the absence of ever really knowing if they told you the truth or are bullshitting to stop it, i dont see how it can be that useful.

[Ray Moscow]

^^This.

Eventually (or sooner in my case), people being tortured are just going to tell you whatever they think you want to hear, made up or not. It's hard to imagine getting any reliable intelligence from this.

[BioBeing]

That's why I put the caveat in of guaranteed reliability. I appreciate you can't get that, but if you could, I could live with the morality.

But the caveat seems to leave it open: If I was 100% guaranteed to get information it would be OK... if I was 99% guaranteed to get info it would be OK... and so we go down a slippery slope, and eventually you end up where the US has just been.

No, I think that we need to accept that the information so gotten is going to be useless. Torture is wrong, period.

[Ray Moscow]

To play devil's advocate, if torture were effective, then we'd have to weigh the possible harm it might prevent (the "ticking bomb") vs. the considerable harm that it causes.

But AFAIK there's no actual positive to balance the negative.

[BioBeing]

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics.

He also said Tuesday that he worries about the impact of high-intensity hearings on how detainees were treated under former President George W. Bush.

But Obama did say, nevertheless, he could support a congressional investigation if it were conducted in a bipartisan way.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495/

Good.

[BioBeing]

To play devil's advocate, if torture were effective, then we'd have to weigh the possible harm it might prevent (the "ticking bomb") vs. the considerable harm that it causes.
If you have the wrong person, no amount of torture is ever going to get them to reveal information. So you would have to know in advance who had the information, and if the info they gave you was correct...

But AFAIK there's no actual positive to balance the negative.
Exactly.

[Pendaric]

That's why I put the caveat in of guaranteed reliability. I appreciate you can't get that, but if you could, I could live with the morality.

But the caveat seems to leave it open: If I was 100% guaranteed to get information it would be OK... if I was 99% guaranteed to get info it would be OK... and so we go down a slippery slope, and eventually you end up where the US has just been.

No, I think that we need to accept that the information so gotten is going to be useless. Torture is wrong, period.

How does the caveat leave it open?

If the information was guaranteed 100% reliable, and you were guaranteed to have the right person, and obtaining it by torture would prevent an attack that would kill thousands, I would support the torture of that individual. If it's not guaranteed reliable, I wouldn't.

How do you justify the lives of thousands of people against the pain of one who is planning to attack them?

[alien billie]

How do you justify the lives of thousands of people against the pain of one who is planning to attack them?

In part, because you are perpetuating a cycle of violence that will lead to future 9/11’s.

[Matty]

perhaps there could be a sliding scale of torture to go with teh sliding scale of surety.

For 100% confidence of getting true information you can go straight to the red hot poker or 24hrs of Celine Dion, but if you are only 25% sure they know what you think they should know, you can only tickle them into submission. 75% is tickets to see Coldplay. 65% is a 2hr conversation with Bishadi and so on.

[dug_down_deep]

You bastard. You heartless, vicious bastard.

[Lisa0315]

I have no opinion, but I will tell you something interesting that a WWII vet told me awhile back. I met him when I was traveling for my company.

Anyway, I asked him what he thought about the war in Iraq and the treatment of the suspected terrorists. He said that we would lose this war and the best thing we could do was get out with our dignity in place. He said you cannot win a war in the media and that war could not tolerate namby-pamby tactics.

I take that as there are going to be some great evils performed during war but that is the only way one can win a war.

I think when answering this question, we need to ask ourselves if we would feel the same if there had never been a war in Iraq. Instead, what if those prisoners were all linked to Al Queda whom we know was guilty of 9-11 and are still planning even more crimes throughout the world. Are we justified in using any means needed to get information then?

Lisa

[David B]

If there were good evidence showing that torture produced reliable intelligence, then we'd have a moral dilemma to deal with.

AFAIK, there is no such evidence, and therefore there's no dilemma. It's just wrong, both morally and practically.

My view too.

David

[BioBeing]

That's why I put the caveat in of guaranteed reliability. I appreciate you can't get that, but if you could, I could live with the morality.

But the caveat seems to leave it open: If I was 100% guaranteed to get information it would be OK... if I was 99% guaranteed to get info it would be OK... and so we go down a slippery slope, and eventually you end up where the US has just been.

No, I think that we need to accept that the information so gotten is going to be useless. Torture is wrong, period.

How does the caveat leave it open?

If the information was guaranteed 100% reliable, and you were guaranteed to have the right person, and obtaining it by torture would prevent an attack that would kill thousands, I would support the torture of that individual. If it's not guaranteed reliable, I wouldn't.

It leaves it open as there is never, ever going to be that guarantee. I would approve of torture if worms had hands.

So what you are saying is that you don't approve of torture, right?

How do you justify the lives of thousands of people against the pain of one who is planning to attack them?

But, see here you are back to saying torture is OK, if it saves lives... HOW do you know you are going to save lives?

[darjeeling]

I take that as there are going to be some great evils performed during war but that is the only way one can win a war.

Extracting bad intelligence by torturing people doesn't win you a war.

Instead, what if those prisoners were all linked to Al Queda whom we know was guilty of 9-11 and are still planning even more crimes throughout the world. Are we justified in using any means needed to get information then?

Do you think it's justified to torture someone for information that's inaccurate anyway?

Can anyone here point to a case where torture yielded in accurate information and saved lots of lives? I'm curious.

[Lisa0315]

I take that as there are going to be some great evils performed during war but that is the only way one can win a war.

Extracting bad intelligence by torturing people doesn't win you a war.

Instead, what if those prisoners were all linked to Al Queda whom we know was guilty of 9-11 and are still planning even more crimes throughout the world. Are we justified in using any means needed to get information then?

Do you think it's justified to torture someone for information that's inaccurate anyway?

Can anyone here point to a case where torture yielded in accurate information and saved lots of lives? I'm curious.

:dunno: I don't know. I am just telling you what a veteran from an older era said, one in which there wasn't a lot of worry about right and wrong in war. It was about victory at all costs, sacrifices were made, and all that.

Lisa

[darjeeling]

I take that as there are going to be some great evils performed during war but that is the only way one can win a war.

Extracting bad intelligence by torturing people doesn't win you a war.

Instead, what if those prisoners were all linked to Al Queda whom we know was guilty of 9-11 and are still planning even more crimes throughout the world. Are we justified in using any means needed to get information then?

Do you think it's justified to torture someone for information that's inaccurate anyway?

Can anyone here point to a case where torture yielded in accurate information and saved lots of lives? I'm curious.

:dunno: I don't know. I am just telling you what a veteran from an older era said, one in which there wasn't a lot of worry about right and wrong in war. It was about victory at all costs, sacrifices were made, and all that.

Lisa

What he said makes sense, in a way. The problem is that torture isn't even useful, so is there really a point in doing something like that when you get nothing out of it?

[Lisa0315]

Extracting bad intelligence by torturing people doesn't win you a war.



Do you think it's justified to torture someone for information that's inaccurate anyway?

Can anyone here point to a case where torture yielded in accurate information and saved lots of lives? I'm curious.

:dunno: I don't know. I am just telling you what a veteran from an older era said, one in which there wasn't a lot of worry about right and wrong in war. It was about victory at all costs, sacrifices were made, and all that.

Lisa

What he said makes sense, in a way. The problem is that torture isn't even useful, so is there really a point in doing something like that when you get nothing out of it?

Yeah.

[LoneWolf]

Torture can lead to good intel, and sometimes does. Yes, often times a person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. But by torturing multiple people and comparing all the results it becomes easier to extract truth from fiction.

But so what? It is wrong. We can't just go around violating someone's human rights like that. If we start following the edict that the ends justify the means then we are fucked as a society.

In my line of work I see a lot of messages that aren't available to the public and the nature of them since the shift in administrations is palpable. The message being sent to those in the know now from the very top is loud and clear: This shit will stop NOW.

[LoneWolf]

Hmmm. No responses. Does that mean I won the thread? Sweeeet, I never win anything.

[Lanakila]

The ends do no justify the means. Locking up Japanese Americans during WW2 wasn't torture but it wasn't right and America as a nation was wrong for doing so. Were there some collaborators and spies working in Hawaii and giving intel to the Japanese? Of course that is proven in history. But locking up and holding people who haven't committed a crime is wrong. Civilized societies must act morally right or they cease to be civilized.

I know war is ugly. It's killing the enemy for god's sakes. But, that doesn't justify some of the immoral actions of soldiers either. Raping and pilaging went out with the Vikings I'd hope.

[dug_down_deep]

I'm just hoping the Republicans are building their 2010 strategy around being pro-torture.

[dug_down_deep]

Because, like...even Disney knows that's wrong.

[rlogan]

How do you justify the lives of thousands of people against the pain of one who is planning to attack them?

Hi pendaric

Utterly false framing.

It is clear with the recently released torture memos and investigations that we tortured people to extract false "confessions" in order to justify a war crime that was entirely based on false pretenses.

At the time they were doing it, they posed exactly this "ticking time bomb" scenario to dupe people into accepting the premise.

You allow the government this ghastly criminal act 100% of the time - for nefarious purposes too - on the basis of some ludicrous scenario that will never happen.


Cheney is an asshole of the first rank. He was given the authority to release classified information by Bush. What he did with it was out Valarie Plame as a CIA agent. To cow others into shutting up about invading Iraq on false pretenses.

That prick would have released classified info if there was even ONE example of a terrorist act torture had prevented.

But he didn't. Because there is none. So now that he is no longer in authority to release classified info, he is pretending to want release of classified info that will show torture "works".

Oh poor me - the info is there and they won't release it...

Jesus, can't we see through this stupid act?

[dancer_rnb]

I wonder how many were tortured that didn't know anything?

[rlogan]

I wonder how many were tortured that didn't know anything?

All of them.

That is what we've learned.

Without arguing on what is or is not "torture", we are in violation of Geneva for thousands of prisoners.

[BioBeing]

What is the legal, constitutional requirement for the US to actually follow the Geneva Conventions? Just asking, as it came up in another discussion I am having.

[rlogan]

It is a set of treaties, which by the constitution is the highest law of the land.

We can remove ourselves from a treaty, but that would take sober debate in the senate and action by both the senate and president.

But of course we will never actually have the senate do that. Because it is easier to ignore the law where convenient and then scream about how the law is not being followed when it is convenient.

[HinduWoman]

No, IMO, brutalising another human being in cold blood is not right whatever the circumstances. I can understand people losing control in heat of the moment but to deliberately have a government policy of torture is horrifying. It would simply mean we are not civilized.

Drugs to loosen up tongues should be more effective.

Even threatening Islamic suspects with burying them in pigskin would work better anyway!

[Mung Dynasty]

Even threatening Islamic suspects with burying them in pigskin would work better anyway!Bit rough on the pigs.

[RAFH]

The ends do no justify the means. Locking up Japanese Americans during WW2 wasn't torture but it wasn't right and America as a nation was wrong for doing so. Were there some collaborators and spies working in Hawaii and giving intel to the Japanese? Of course that is proven in history. But locking up and holding people who haven't committed a crime is wrong. Civilized societies must act morally right or they cease to be civilized.

I know war is ugly. It's killing the enemy for god's sakes. But, that doesn't justify some of the immoral actions of soldiers either. Raping and pilaging went out with the Vikings I'd hope.

It was proven in history? Mind citing instances? As far as I know, there was very little or no such collaboration, at least not any that provided useful information or caused harm to the war effort, other than wasting effort to hunt them down.

In fact, some of the damage, to bombers parked in the middle of runways in foursomes to keep them as far from possible sabateurs resulted in them being easy pickings for the Japanese planes during the Pearl Harbor raid.

Torture has one goal, to get the subject to say or agree to whatever you want them to say or agree to. Which means you already have that information. This has always been the purpose of torture, to extract 'confessions' and to exact revenge. Any serious agent would be trained in anti-interrogation and torture resistance. And, for the most part, whatever intel they possess will be limited because it's known people will crack and will say anything. Plus there's the issue of timeliness, as soon as it's known someone with valuable intel has been captured, anything that person knows is discarded and they are cut out of the loop. Whatever they may tell you will be next to useless.

It may take longer to use effective techniques that convince the subject to willingly spill the beans but at least you get good information.

As for Chenney's other memos, I'd be very skeptical of such, they may well be plants to justify their actions. It's what I would do if I were them.

[Barbarian]

Torture can lead to good intel, and sometimes does. Yes, often times a person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. But by torturing multiple people and comparing all the results it becomes easier to extract truth from fiction.One of the strongest arguments for continuing the witch hunts in Europe was the corroboration of the confessions; witches in very different locations confessed to the same crimes, described the same ceremonies down to the detail of what does Satan's penis feel like (apparently it's smooth and ice-cold, btw.).

The morale of the story is that if the torturers look for certain elements in confessions, then multiple people will confess to the same elements. Conversely, common elements of confessions may just as well be artifacts of the torturer's mindsets as the elements of a single confession.

[Lanakila]

The ends do no justify the means. Locking up Japanese Americans during WW2 wasn't torture but it wasn't right and America as a nation was wrong for doing so. Were there some collaborators and spies working in Hawaii and giving intel to the Japanese? Of course that is proven in history. But locking up and holding people who haven't committed a crime is wrong. Civilized societies must act morally right or they cease to be civilized.

I know war is ugly. It's killing the enemy for god's sakes. But, that doesn't justify some of the immoral actions of soldiers either. Raping and pilaging went out with the Vikings I'd hope.

It was proven in history? Mind citing instances? As far as I know, there was very little or no such collaboration, at least not any that provided useful information or caused harm to the war effort, other than wasting effort to hunt them down.

In fact, some of the damage, to bombers parked in the middle of runways in foursomes to keep them as far from possible sabateurs resulted in them being easy pickings for the Japanese planes during the Pearl Harbor raid. <snip>


I don't have evidence for my statement at all. I've watched the Pearl Harbor movies and took them at face value. I was trying to say that even if there were spies working for the Japanese that doesn't justify what our nation did.

[Stout Drinker]

Torture can lead to good intel, and sometimes does. Yes, often times a person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. But by torturing multiple people and comparing all the results it becomes easier to extract truth from fiction.



From that framing the only way it works is to use it to multiple people as part of a fishing expedition. That undoubtedly means torturing some innocent people. The scenario always framed by torture apologists is the ticking time bomb and the only person who knows how to diffuse the bomb is in custody.

Bottom line is that whatever benefits are gathered by torture are always minuscule compared to the damage done.

In my line of work I see a lot of messages that aren't available to the public and the nature of them since the shift in administrations is palpable. The message being sent to those in the know now from the very top is loud and clear: This shit will stop NOW.


That is great news. To be fair though I do think that McCain as POTUS would have put an end to torture. Though that fool could die and we'd have Palin as POTUS! She would torture for Jesus.

[rlogan]

The scenario always framed by torture apologists is the ticking time bomb and the only person who knows how to diffuse the bomb is in custody.


Look at how ludicrous that story is, by the way. You would think that with thousands of years of human history they could actually come up with a bona-fide example.

But they can't.

And look how stupid this one is...

So the cops know there is a ticking time bomb. How do they know that? To know any kind of details on what the alleged bomb is capable of and what kind of threat it really is, they'd have to pretty much already have the plot completely solved - and that begs the question why they then don't already have the bomb.

There are never any details given on such a stupid story because you can't give details and have the story sound credible. Who is the bomber, what is his motive, who is he working with, how did they find out, what kind of bomb - once you are forced to fill these details in then torture becomes ridiculous vis-a-vis wiretaps or bomb dogs or evacuation or whatever.

[LoneWolf]

From that framing the only way it works is to use it to multiple people as part of a fishing expedition. That undoubtedly means torturing some innocent people. The scenario always framed by torture apologists is the ticking time bomb and the only person who knows how to diffuse the bomb is in custody.

It certainly can amount to a fishing expedition. In fairness, there probably is usally some incriminating evidence against the person that leads the "authorities" to suspect them of possibly having information. But it isn't exactly like they are getting a trial so it is almost certain that innocent people get tortured. And yeah, those scenarios that many torture proponents put out there pretty much only happen in tv shows like 24.

Bottom line is that whatever benefits are gathered by torture are always minuscule compared to the damage done.

Absolutely.



That is great news. To be fair though I do think that McCain as POTUS would have put an end to torture. Though that fool could die and we'd have Palin as POTUS! She would torture for Jesus.

I tend to agree with you there also. Alhtough he may not have been as public in the way he would go about it.

[Ray Moscow]

Torture can lead to good intel, and sometimes does. Yes, often times a person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. But by torturing multiple people and comparing all the results it becomes easier to extract truth from fiction.

But isn't that true of interrogation without torture, too?


But so what? It is wrong. We can't just go around violating someone's human rights like that. If we start following the edict that the ends justify the means then we are fucked as a society.

Agreed

In my line of work I see a lot of messages that aren't available to the public and the nature of them since the shift in administrations is palpable. The message being sent to those in the know now from the very top is loud and clear: This shit will stop NOW.

About fucking time!

[LoneWolf]

Torture can lead to good intel, and sometimes does. Yes, often times a person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. But by torturing multiple people and comparing all the results it becomes easier to extract truth from fiction.

But isn't that true of interrogation without torture, too?


I would say so, but there will be people who won't be persuaded to talk until some pain is inflicted. And I doubt they start with torture. They likely work their way up to that point. If people talk before it gets to that point they probably stop there.

Of course, take what I say with a grain of salt. I have never personally witnessed a real life torture session, or even an interrogation session for that matter. I have personally been water boarded but it was in a training session and I knew I was safe.

[Matty]

i was kinda tempted to join the Royal Navy from school until they told me that raping and pillaging isnt allowed any more.

"Sorry son, we dont go about just killing raping and maiming for the sake of it any more, such actions need to be JUSTIFIED. Now i can see you are serious about this choice of career so if were you I'd get reading Revelations and see if you cant get signed up for the US marines. They are always looking for fine upstanding young men like you"

:)

[epepke]

I'm glad that the reliability of torture has been called into question.

The other thing, however, is that physical torture has been obsolete for at least fifteen years. There is an injectable drug (maybe more than one, now) that quietly blocks dopamine receptors. It does everything that torture is supposed to do, only cheaper and more quickly.

Given that this drug exists and that it is certainly available to the government, it completely changes the context of justifications for waterboarding etc. All justifications argued upon efficacy must be lies. It's like arguing for the efficacy of mercury poisoning as a treatment for syphilis after the invention of antibiotics. Mercury might well weaken spirochetes, but anyone who argued for it these days would be off his nut.

Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

Many things are like this. Abstinence-only sex education does not decrease the incidence of premarital sex, but it does give its advocates a means of advertising their morality. Cubicles and open office plans decrease productivity, but like the panopticon, they give managers a feeling of power. Polygraphs don't detect lies, but they provide a pseudoscientific aura to those who wish to pass judgments.

[dug_down_deep]

Polygraphs also supply daytime television talk shows with something to do.

[BioBeing]

I'm glad that the reliability of torture has been called into question.

The other thing, however, is that physical torture has been obsolete for at least fifteen years. There is an injectable drug (maybe more than one, now) that quietly blocks dopamine receptors. It does everything that torture is supposed to do, only cheaper and more quickly.

Given that this drug exists and that it is certainly available to the government, it completely changes the context of justifications for waterboarding etc. All justifications argued upon efficacy must be lies. It's like arguing for the efficacy of mercury poisoning as a treatment for syphilis after the invention of antibiotics. Mercury might well weaken spirochetes, but anyone who argued for it these days would be off his nut.

Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

Many things are like this. Abstinence-only sex education does not decrease the incidence of premarital sex, but it does give its advocates a means of advertising their morality. Cubicles and open office plans decrease productivity, but like the panopticon, they give managers a feeling of power. Polygraphs don't detect lies, but they provide a pseudoscientific aura to those who wish to pass judgments.

:notworthy:

[Schneibster]

There are two separate lines of attack here.

The first one is, not only doesn't it work, but we know and use what does work. What does work is FBI interrogation techniques. No drugs, no abuse. Professionals don't use that. And professionals get results.

The second is, it's illegal, and against treaties we've signed. It doesn't matter if it works or not.

[LoneWolf]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

[BWE]

first, who's they. I imagine you'd answer both questions at the same time.

[BioBeing]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

epepke already answered that: Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

[dancer_rnb]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

I've been hearing that the purpose of the techniques when used by those who held our soldiers in the past was to break the victim so he would say whatever was desired for propoganda purposes, not to get valid information.

[LoneWolf]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

epepke already answered that: Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

But the ones who do the torturing aren't the ones who authorized it. Are you saying that the suits back in Washington who were responsible for it were getting pleasure and a feeling of power vicariously? They were already the most powerful people in the world, this seems like it would have hardly registered on their power meters.

[LoneWolf]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

I've been hearing that the purpose of the techniques when used by those who held our soldiers in the past was to break the victim so he would say whatever was desired for propoganda purposes, not to get valid information.

This is an excellent reason, but not for the US who would rather keep such info as secret as possible rather than using it for propoganda.

[BioBeing]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

epepke already answered that: Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

But the ones who do the torturing aren't the ones who authorized it. Are you saying that the suits back in Washington who were responsible for it were getting pleasure and a feeling of power vicariously? They were already the most powerful people in the world, this seems like it would have hardly registered on their power meters.

No - I don't think even Cheney woke up one morning and said "we need to torture some a-rabs today". My guess would be that the techniques on the ground got more ruthless, and it went up the chain of command that they needed to allow the grunts more latitude in how they stopped terrorism. Probably in a post-facto manner...

[dancer_rnb]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

I've been hearing that the purpose of the techniques when used by those who held our soldiers in the past was to break the victim so he would say whatever was desired for propoganda purposes, not to get valid information.

This is an excellent reason, but not for the US who would rather keep such info as secret as possible rather than using it for propoganda.

That's assuming the government at the time wouldn't disseminate false information to justify an action.
I'll admit this may be crossing into conspiracy territory.

[rlogan]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

First of all, throw away any assumption that Bush was a wise statesman, devoted student of world history, current events, and civics. Stop assuming he is free of bigotry, or that he is fundamentally kind and sincere, and open minded.

Once you have done that then bad reasons for torture become both logically possible and probable.

It has already been shown through formal sentate investigation that they tortured to try extracting false "confessions" to a 9/11 - Saddam link. That it was the white house directing both the entire torture policy and specifically this objective.

The fact that Bush was repeatedly warned torture would not be a reliable source of intelligence but he went ahead and initiated an entire program of it demonstrates he operates on objectives that are reprehensible, and I belive base motivations of sadistic pleasure play a part. We know the White House was directly involved in individual torture regimens for specific prisoners. So there can be little doubt about this.

[LoneWolf]

No - I don't think even Cheney woke up one morning and said "we need to torture some a-rabs today". My guess would be that the techniques on the ground got more ruthless, and it went up the chain of command that they needed to allow the grunts more latitude in how they stopped terrorism. Probably in a post-facto manner...

Could be. Certainly sounds plausible.

[hecaterin]

So hey, is this torture OK if it gets results?

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=93277302845&h=3LZGJ&u=i54zR&ref=nf

*vomits*

[rlogan]

Devil's advocate/ If it doesn't work then why did they do it?

epepke already answered that: Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

But the ones who do the torturing aren't the ones who authorized it. Are you saying that the suits back in Washington who were responsible for it were getting pleasure and a feeling of power vicariously? They were already the most powerful people in the world, this seems like it would have hardly registered on their power meters.

No - I don't think even Cheney woke up one morning and said "we need to torture some a-rabs today". My guess would be that the techniques on the ground got more ruthless, and it went up the chain of command that they needed to allow the grunts more latitude in how they stopped terrorism. Probably in a post-facto manner...

The senate report, combined with everything we have learned to date is that this is completly false.

It is incontrovertible now that this was a White House top-down program. It was the White House in December of 2001 making inquiry with the SERE program (teaches soldiers how to withstand torture) to design these tortures.

It is absolutely false that this started at the bottom.


Despite this being nationwide news, people do not want to believe this about their government. I thought I already posted links to this before.

Senate Report:


http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/EXEC%20SUMMARY-CONCLUSIONS_For%20Release_12%20December%202008.pdf

So now I have a question for you and Lone Wolf. It has been conclusively demonstrated by this official report by the U.S. Senate that this was a top-down program that was begun in 2001, contrary to what you have speculated about the bottom people got more ruthless and then needed more latitude.

Are you willing to accept the conclusions of this report?

Or do you think there is a conspiracy to cover up that it was a bottom-up program as you described?


Thanks. Meant cheerfully.

[LoneWolf]

Well, I didn’t state that I thought it was a bottom up program. In response to epepke’s claim:

Given this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of torture is not to extract information. It does give pleasure and a feeling of power and control to the torturers.

I was asking how that could be a motivation for the higher ups in Washington who don’t even get to participate in the torture sessions. I wasn’t saying that I didn’t think it was run from the top, I just didn’t think that particular argument supported that position.

An no, I don’t think there is a conspiracy to cover up that it was a bottom-up program. Conspiracies rarely protect the little guy.

[rlogan]

Thanks Lonewolf

But they did participate. Directly. That has been demonstrated too - that the programs for individual detainees were fashioned by the white house, and that this was something they eagerly participated in. How extensive this was in terms of watching the tapes they have now destroyed - that has not been determined.

But this is every bit the same as Kings who sent people off to be tortured, even selecting the means, and it is not very much of an excuse that they did not sit at the session themselves. The king is with his concubines and supping fine fare, not doing the grisly work himself.

Thanks again and cheers.

[LoneWolf]

So, on part of the higher ups, what do you think was their primary motivation for directing the use of torture? Was it that they wanted to be cruel? Was it that they felt these people derved to suffer? Do you think they actually believed they could get worthwhile information using the methods? In analyzing any crime it helps to determine motive.

[Llyricist]

So, on part of the higher ups, what do you think was their primary motivation for directing the use of torture? Was it that they wanted to be cruel? Was it that they felt these people derved to suffer? Do you think they actually believed they could get worthwhile information using the methods? In analyzing any crime it helps to determine motive.

rlogan has pointed this out before, but there is one thing torture is effective at doing, and that is extracting confessions of whatever the torturer wants them to confess to. Their motive was to get someone to "confess" some connections between Al 'Qaida and Iraq. Or whatever else they may have wanted them to "confess" to.

[DMB]

So, on part of the higher ups, what do you think was their primary motivation for directing the use of torture? Was it that they wanted to be cruel? Was it that they felt these people derved to suffer? Do you think they actually believed they could get worthwhile information using the methods? In analyzing any crime it helps to determine motive.

Do remember that at least some of these people appeared to believe in other nonsense like epepke's examples of abstinence-only sex education that they were prepared to promote at considerable public cost. Bush, at least, has always seemed to be capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast. If torture seemed morally right -- these captives are horrible, immoral bastards and so deserve to suffer -- then they might not have a problem with managing to believe that it would be effective in extracting information. Don't expect logic or consistency.

What I want to know, though, is whether anyone thinks there is a totally hard and fast line to be drawn between something that can clearly be described and torture and something that could be thought of as a bullying but legitimate interrogation technique.

[LoneWolf]

What I want to know, though, is whether anyone thinks there is a totally hard and fast line to be drawn between something that can clearly be described and torture and something that could be thought of as a bullying but legitimate interrogation technique.

I don't. There are things most people would say is definitely torture and things most people would say isn't torture. * The word torture is a lot like the word terrorism in that there is much disagreement in what constitutes either.

Why isn't putting someone in prison for years at a time considered torture by most? Is it because we don't want to put the torture label on something that we personally may think is necessary?

*ETA: I forgot a sentence out of that post and it is: And there is a whole host of things in between.

[hecaterin]

So hey, is this torture OK if it gets results?http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=93277302845&h=3LZGJ&u=i54zR&ref=nf
*vomits*Proper link: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/
Sorry for facebook stuffup.

[rlogan]

A lot of stuff coming out now. Recommending www.talkingpointsmemo.com for its articles. One of them here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/soufan_lawful_techniques_unlike_torture_got_key_in .php

The actionable intelligence with Zubaydah, and this is the closest thing to the ticking time bomb scenario we had in reality - was from LEGAL techniques.

There is an astonishing set of stories in totality now.

1) White House orders torture programs to start before prisoners are even available to practice it on.

2) Legal briefs against it are destroyed while phony CYA ones drawn up - CHeney at the helm of document destruction.

3) Torture used to extract false confessions and it worked - one just died now in captivity, the source of the "Iraq training Al Qaeda in WMD use" lie that Bush peddled. There were others too - false confessions the administration used as cover for an illegal war.

4) In conjunction with the "Office of Special Plans" - sole purpose of fabricating "intelligence" to lie our way into war demonstrates that the Cheney-neocon axis of evil would stop at nothing to achieve their ends. Forged Niger uranium memo, outing a CIA agent as retribution for whistleblowing on it...


Bush's infantile approach to his world explains some of it - Iraq threatened my daddy so I am taking him out... he needed henchmen to help, and Cheney et. al. had their whole world conquest "New American Century" fantasies to play out and billions in profits to generate on the way.

Contempt for human rights. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

That's why.

And it pains me to see people making excuses for them whether they be democrats or republicans. Obama is wrong.

Prosecute.

[epepke]

Since my name has been invoked, I should say that I think Cheney probably did get a stiffie about the idea. It should also be noted that the psychologists who developed "waterboarding" and other techniques had no particular qualifications with regard to military interrogations. Not that I hold the military in a particularly high regard with respect to competence. It's just that if people were rational and trying to achieve a goal, they would have hired people who had some idea of what they were doing. The fact that not only the military and the rest of the government, but also large corporations, hire people to be incompetent seems to me to indicate that they aren't interested in results.

The idea that the most powerful people in the world wouldn't want to get more gratification from power, similarly, seems more than a little naive to me. People don't get to be the most powerful people in the world by saying, "Gosh, that's enough power."

Torture seems to me a lot like the terrorist threat color code and abstinence-only sex education. People don't do it because it works; they do it because it gives them opportunity for self-gratification and posturing they imagine will impress people and Baby Jesus.