Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by nononono
There are all kinds of reasons to pass legislation, not the least of which may be an attempt to preempt legislation running the other direction. I'm trying to understand whether this is all about 5 people caught in the crossfire + media, or whether we're running out of control, torturing innocents willy-nilly.

At least in part, it's about Bush trying to help Republicans win in the fall elections. This issue didn't need to wait until after Labor Day.

It's not an effort to preempt legislation running the other way. The law has been very clear that (e.g.) waterboarding is not allowed. To get around the law, people in the Executive Branch have relied on presidential authorization, relying on legal (non-judicial) opinions based on a broad reading of the President's powers under Article II. This gave people a good defense to any prosecution. But the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi overrules those opinions.

No one really knows how many people the CIA has been holding overseas. Bush's position was that it harmed national security to acknowledge the prisons, until he told people about them, at which point it had apparently become OK.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with this except for the stupid part. But is it worth being vicious and debasing to all Americans if it will save innocent lives?

Not as official policy, no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Every book I have read about underground movements during the Nazi occupation implied that if the SS caught you, it was guranteed you gave up names.

There was a Dutch resister, whose name escapes me, who didn't give up any names to the SS and he was considered unbelievably strong. The basic rule was that if you knew someone who was captured, time to disappear.

When my father was stationed in Berlin during the fifties, the KGB would stick western agents feet into the smelting kiln at the local steel works in East Berlin. My father said it worked every time. Any information the agent had was considered in the KGBs hands after that.

I think the refrain about torture not working is just wishful thinking. It would be nice if it didn't work, then there would be no temptation to do it and it wouldn't be an issue. But unfortunately the real world does not work that way.

In the real world, the tough decision = no torture (or rough interrogations)then it is harder to find other secret operativess. If we employ torture then we find out more secret operatives and foil more terrorist plots.

You're saying that the problem is that we're willing to use waterboarding but not smelter kilns?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
let's hold judgement until we hear if SS is Omniscient or if he's just mouthing other people's opinons.

Hank -- I'll give you your third thread title:

"The bottom line is that nobody here, on either side, knows what the fuck they are talking about . . ."

from personal experience when it comes to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of torture. So drop it.

I suppose you need to make a determination of potential effectiveness to decide whether it makes common sense to do it (i.e. know the possible benefits). The morality of it is another issue, for which such a determination isn't necessarily required.

If we're going to be "the shining city on a Hill", we can't have folks cover their ears to avoid hearing the screams coming from the basement.

S_A_M

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
I do this everday on the board. Much more effectively now that I have found smilies. Lucky for me, the moderators seem to tolerate torture. :bounce:

And that particular smiley is hypnotising, lulling. Good choice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
To me 2-6 are torture. Any time you physically abuse the prisoner= torture.

Of course, who cares if torture is legal or justified.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
To me 2-6 are torture. Any time you physically abuse the prisoner= torture.

This position makes it much easier to condone torture. Excellent attempt at framing the debate, Mr. Rumsfeld.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
"The bottom line is that nobody here, on either side, knows what the fuck they are talking about . . ."

from personal experience when it comes to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of torture. So drop it.

dimfuck. I wasn't saying it does work, i was just asking those that said it doesn't how they know that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm sure you're correct, Mr. Beria . . . .

I suppose we just assess the costs and the (completely unknown) benefits differently.

S_A_M

right. the completely unknown benefits vs. the concretely measurable costs. god you're dense.

HC
309-21

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're saying that the problem is that we're willing to use waterboarding but not smelter kilns?

People on this board keep arguing that torture doesn't work. I think that position is naive and I think my post helped prove that. I think people just don't want to accept the ramifications of certain decisions.

It would be really great if torture could not extract useful information. Then our interrogators would not be faced with such an awful dilemma.

But I think one of the keys to saving lives and foiling terrorists is getting the name of other terrorists from captured terrorists. Information on hiding terrorists is the most critical information we can get. Until we invent an effective truth serum, extracting that information from detainees, since they don't want to give it up, is going to involve some sort of physical or mental abuse. I consider that torture.

The more we restrict our interrogators from using abusive techniques the less information we are going to get. And for this particular conflict, the information we are not going to get is key information.

On the other hand, if we do torture people, it is going to get out and make it easier for the opposition to recruit. If I lived in Pakistan and I didn't care to much about the conflict either way, but my brother was captured by the Americans, and tortured by them, that would be a strong incentive for me to join Al Queda. The use of torture also diminishes our belief in our moral high ground, which is not good for the morale on our side in the war on terror.

It is when people try and pretend the cost doesn't exist when making decisions, that is when really bad choices are made.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dimfuck. I wasn't saying it does work, i was just asking those that said it doesn't how they know that.

Given that it goes against everything we stand for and all, shouldn't the burden really be on the proponents to prove it does work?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
People on this board keep arguing that torture doesn't work. I think that position is naive and I think my post helped prove that. I think people just don't want to accept the ramifications of certain decisions.

It would be really great if torture could not extract useful information. Then our interrogators would not be faced with such an awful dilemma.

But I think one of the keys to saving lives and foiling terrorists is getting the name of other terrorists from captured terrorists. Information on hiding terrorists is the most critical information we can get. Until we invent an effective truth serum, extracting that information from detainees, since they don't want to give it up, is going to involve some sort of physical or mental abuse. I consider that torture.

The more we restrict our interrogators from using abusive techniques the less information we are going to get. And for this particular conflict, the information we are not going to get is key information.

On the other hand, if we do torture people, it is going to get out and make it easier for the opposition to recruit. If I lived in Pakistan and I didn't care to much about the conflict either way, but my brother was captured by the Americans, and tortured by them, that would be a strong incentive for me to join Al Queda. The use of torture also diminishes our belief in our moral high ground, which is not good for the morale on our side in the war on terror.

It is when people try and pretend the cost doesn't exist when making decisions, that is when really bad choices are made.

Your whole calculus is too utilitarian for me, although I respect that you do seem to be grappling with some of the larger ways in which torturing people hurts us.

I find it odd that the advocates of torture hereabouts -- in whom I'm not sure I include you -- are ignoring the fact that the Army and FBI think it's counterproductive and don't want to do it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This position makes it much easier to condone torture. Excellent attempt at framing the debate, Mr. Rumsfeld.

So it is not OK to torture, but beating on detainees and pretending that you are drowning them is not torture, so it is OK to use those techniques.

Give me a break.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
-- are ignoring the fact that the Army and FBI think it's counterproductive and don't want to do it.

Cite?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite?

If you are truly interested, there are numerous cites.

eta: This book is a good start.


http://www.amazon.com/Interrogators-...e=UTF8&s=books