A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Okay. I don't necessarily disagree with you with respect to bona fide Al Qaeda members/operatives/whatever (e.g. KSM). But what about someone who isn't, but was arrested/captured based on either bad information or wrong place/wrong time? With your basic stance on this, how do you avoid torturing the genuinely uninvolved?

Or do we have to torture anyone who might be linked to Al Qaeda (by proximity or bad information or whatever) in order to establish who is and who isn't? Doesn't torture become counter productive (even for the purposes you state) if used too broadly?

That is the trade off. If you torture people you are going to end up torturing innocent people. That is unavoidable. Just like if you decide to jail people, you are going to jail innocent people, or if you employ the death penalty you are going to put to death innocent people. Our society has decided that jailing people is necessary for the good of society even though we are going to end up jailing innocent people.

Imprisoning someone is really a form of torture. What seems so strange to me is that everyone admits that certain forms of coercive techniques can get people to divulge information they don't want to otherwise divulge. Even these interrogators that argue that torture doesn’t work, admit that they use coercive techniques to get information they just claim that what the coercive techniques they use are not torture, and the more extreme techniques other people use are torture (and of course those don't work). "We use water boarding, which works, but water boarding is not torture, but other stuff that is torture does not work."

Of course torture, like anything else, can be screwed up so it ends up not working. The opportunity for abuse is immense, and sadists will gravitate towards being interrogators just like Pedophiles will gravitate towards being priests. I think torture that causes permanent physical damage is always unnecessary.

You should always use as little torture as is necessary. But if you have captured someone you are pretty sure that is a high level Al Qaeda operative that you have strong suspicion they have lots of valuable information, I am for giving our interrogators a lot of leeway in doing what they feel is necessary to get the information. Of course giving our interrogators this leeway will open up chances for abuse and will lead to some innocent people getting tortured. But I think it is worth the trade off.

The enemy’s number one asset and their biggest vulnerability is secrecy. They can't operate if they can't keep secrets. One of the best ways to get to these secrets is getting them out of captured operatives who won't want to give the secrets up, but I am fully convinced they can be coerced into giving up those secrets. Almost every man has a breaking point, even a religious zealot.

In more conventional wars the key to success is not capturing their undercover operatives and getting them to reveal information. Doing that can be helpful, but it would not be the key to our success and the cause of their downfall. In the war on terror, secrecy and obtaining information are the most important weapons in the war. In addition, our torturing their operatives is not going to make them treat our people any worse.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I dunno. I think it's unreasonable to expect the POTUS to listen to something like General Shinseki's public testimony before Congress, shortly before the war, about the need for vastly more troops.

I mean, he would've had to take a day off from clearing brush, or maybe read a newspaper or something to be aware of that.

And then maybe he should/could have had Shinseki in for a private meeting to ask him more about his opinion, but that would have really undercut Rumsfeld.

With the books now out talking about how Rumsfeld operated, we can see even more clearly now than then how Shinseki was really making a bold move by going public (even to Congress) with an opinion that did not toe the party line.

He probably expected it to be career-ender, as it was (slightly early retirement).

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
In other words, they have already plotted out their position and are just grabbing anything to back it up.

One could just as easily argue that torture works and there we should not have moral objections to it. In fact, that is exactly what you are doing.

Isn't it possible that someone could sincirely have moral objections and believe that it is effective to torture (perhaps, as I have mentioned, because of the certainty that you will be torturing people who are innocent and don't know anything)?

But as I have said again and again you just have to have a rudimentary understanding of history to understand that torture has been used very effectively through the years.

I'm not sure why you assume that torture was NECESSARY to gain this information.

And you are aware that people have been known to confess to all sorts of things that they didn't do, and give out made up information, when tortured, right?





Are you trying to be obtuse? Are you kidding? Do you think there may be levels of torture? Have you heard of negative reinforcement? Once you have been tortured, if you give us good information we will stop hurting you, if it turns out to be bad we will come back and hurt you again. If an extortion racket received some counterfeit money from someone they are extorting do you think they say, "well, we have already beat this guy up once, so there is nothing we can do to make sure he doesn't give us counterfit money again"?

If they don't have useful information does that make them innocent?

It is a pretty fucking good indicator, yes. Or do you think that we are so well informed we would never torture an innocent?

Why venture beyond the obvious, when the obvious proves your point.

That pretty much sums all of your arguments on this board up ina single sentence.

Unfortunately, Spanky, the devil is in the details.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Wrong? Cute? WTF?

Is that a pinata?

If so, I'd say a pinata shaped as a HMMV with depictions of U.S. soldiers inside is "wrong." (i.e. not something I like or support).

In miniature, as a Christmas ornament, OK.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, fuck off. You are an obsessive freak-show. You made a stupid comment comparing the torture of an innocent American to the travails of a parent, and -- in classic twit form -- your reaction to being called on it was to pretend you were making a joke.

Incredibly enough, my interactions with the psychotic have little to do with the extent to which I feel like a man.

I have very little insight into your interactions, but I'm really surprised that anyone thought that her response was not a joke.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Indeed, he does. He has a sense of humor, some perspective on how unimportant arguments on a chat board really are, and a tremendous lack of arrongance. You should emulate him.

Does suggesting that I am jerking off make you glow in your powerful womanhood? Does it complete you?

Stop being such a banana.

S_A_M

P.S. I vote for kumquat rather than papaya. Sounds naughtier.

(eta: dammit Slave!)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Stop being such a banana.

S_A_M

P.S. I vote for kumquat rather than papaya. Sounds naughtier.

(eta: dammit Slave!)

I'd support pawpaw over papaya, even though they are the same thing.

Leechee? Jackfruit? Prickly Pear?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd support pawpaw over papaya, even though they are the same thing.

Leechee? Jackfruit? Prickly Pear?

I'm leaving if someone brings durians to the board. Those things are disgusting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is just a perfect example of where sour grapes and ethnic hatred completely trump common sense.

Actually, it sounds like the driver for Scottish independence, such as it is, is Scots' desire to keep the vast majority of the revenue from North Sea oil. Neither sour grapes nor ethnic hatred, though a sticky wicket for Gordon Brown, Tony Blair's successor to be, in that he is Scottish.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Leechee? Jackfruit? Prickly Pear?

That really depends on whose you're talking about . . .

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm leaving if someone brings durians to the board. Those things are disgusting.

Would you like some Pommegranate?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
But if you have captured someone you are pretty sure that is a high level Al Qaeda operative that you have strong suspicion they have lots of valuable information, I am for giving our interrogators a lot of leeway in doing what they feel is necessary to get the information. Of course giving our interrogators this leeway will open up chances for abuse and will lead to some innocent people getting tortured. But I think it is worth the trade off.

Discussing whether we should torture high level al Qaeda operatives is virtually irrelevant to the question of whether we should be torturing prisoners in Iraq. It's a lot closer to the freshman Philosophy question: Would you kill a baby if you knew it was going to grow up to be Hitler (or Charles Manson, or Stalin, or whatever)?

What proportion of prisoners that we've taken in Iraq would you say were "high level al Qaeda operatives"? I would guess something less than .01% -- probably less than .001%. The vast majority of prisoners that we've taken have been innocent of anything. Some have even been informants to the US military or law enforcement. Very, very few have had any connection to al Qaeda, or even to the insurgents and militias that are not related to al Qaeda and that account for the bulk of violence in Iraq today.

These are the people who get tortured, when you start giving general leeway.

You are certainly correct that the Nazis and the Soviet Army proved the efficacy of torture. That, to me, is not a compelling reason to adopt a policy. My first objection is moral, and should be obvious.

My second objection is strategic, and is what you ignore. When the Nazis occupied France, they didn't care about winning the hearts and minds of those who supported the resistance. They didn't plan to rebuild France as an independent nation that would be friendly to Nazi ideals. They were occupiers, conquerors. Same for the Soviets.

In contrast, we did not invade Iraq to conquer, or to occupy it. We went to build a stable democracy, in the hopes that American ideals could transform that country. The policies you seem to support push people who might be on our side towards the enemy side.

As I said yesterday: The benefit you suggest we can reap from torture comes at a tremendous cost, not just to our ideals as Americans but to our ability to win the very war we are fighting.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm leaving if someone brings durians to the board. Those things are disgusting.

Have you eaten one? I'm scared of them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Discussing whether we should torture high level al Qaeda operatives is virtually irrelevant to the question of whether we should be torturing prisoners in Iraq. It's a lot closer to the freshman Philosophy question: Would you kill a baby if you knew it was going to grow up to be Hitler (or Charles Manson, or Stalin, or whatever)?

What proportion of prisoners that we've taken in Iraq would you say were "high level al Qaeda operatives"? I would guess something less than .01% -- probably less than .001%. The vast majority of prisoners that we've taken have been innocent of anything. Some have even been informants to the US military or law enforcement. Very, very few have had any connection to al Qaeda, or even to the insurgents and militias that are not related to al Qaeda and that account for the bulk of violence in Iraq today.

These are the people who get tortured, when you start giving general leeway.

You are certainly correct that the Nazis and the Soviet Army proved the efficacy of torture. That, to me, is not a compelling reason to adopt a policy. My first objection is moral, and should be obvious.

My second objection is strategic, and is what you ignore. When the Nazis occupied France, they didn't care about winning the hearts and minds of those who supported the resistance. They didn't plan to rebuild France as an independent nation that would be friendly to Nazi ideals. They were occupiers, conquerors. Same for the Soviets.

In contrast, we did not invade Iraq to conquer, or to occupy it. We went to build a stable democracy, in the hopes that American ideals could transform that country. The policies you seem to support push people who might be on our side towards the enemy side.

As I said yesterday: The benefit you suggest we can reap from torture comes at a tremendous cost, not just to our ideals as Americans but to our ability to win the very war we are fighting.

The "would you torture a terrorist to stop a ticking bomb" hypothetical is used repeatedly to justify the use of torture even though no one has ever suggested that we have successfully used torture to stop a ticking bomb. Instead, the hypothetical has been offered up as the rationale for the use of torture under all sorts of other circumstances.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
One could just as easily argue that torture works and there we should not have moral objections to it. In fact, that is exactly what you are doing.

Those are two separate issues. One issue is whether torture works. Even if it works it may be wrong, but that is a separate issue.

Originally posted by Adder Isn't it possible that someone could sincirely have moral objections and believe that it is effective to torture (perhaps, as I have mentioned, because of the certainty that you will be torturing people who are innocent and don't know anything)?

Absolutey. But no one on this board. That is a position I respect. I disagree with it but I respect it. Ideologues have a tendency to not want to face the consquences of their positions. They like to pretend there is no down side to anything they propose. In the torture argument, many people that promote the use of torture argue that there is no way an innocent person will get tortured. That is also a denial of reaity and an ideologue argument. If you allow torture, eventually an an innocent person will get tortured. Conversley, if you don't allow torture some innocent people will get killed that could have been saved if you allowed torture. Both are unpleasant facts people don't want to face.

Originally posted by Adder
I'm not sure why you assume that torture was NECESSARY to gain this information.

If I was an undercover operative working in Pakistan to work against Al Queda, and I was caught, I would not want to give up the identity of my fellow operatives. Especially if it meant their capture and possible death. I woud also not want to give A Queda any information that would help their cause. I would not give up this information voluntarily. However, I can't gurantee that I wouldn't give up this information under torture. Al Queda operatives that have been captured are not going to want to give up information that will be harmful to Al Queda's cause. So how else are you going to get this information if not through torture?

Originally posted by Adder And you are aware that people have been known to confess to all sorts of things that they didn't do, and give out made up information, when tortured, right?

Yes. But getting someone to confess a crime and getting them to give up information they don't want to give up are two totally different things. Yes, if you torture someone sometimes they might give you bad information. But when you figure out that information is bad, you go back and punish the person. Over the centuries it is clear that much valuable information has been obtained through torture.

Originally posted by Adder
It is a pretty fucking good indicator, yes.

You are mixing up two totally different issues here. It is perfectly possible that a captured Al Queda operative may not have any useful information to give to interrogators. Problem is, since none of them are going to want to talk, you may not be able to find out who has got the valuable information until you torture them.

Originally posted by Adder Or do you think that we are so well informed we would never torture an innocent?

No, as I said, if you allow torture, eventually you will end up tortuing innocent people.

Originally posted by Adder That pretty much sums all of your arguments on this board up ina single sentence.

I agree. Most of my positions are painfully obvious, it's a wonder that so many people disagree with anything I say.

Are you familliar with Occams razor?

Originally posted by Adder
Unfortunately, Spanky, the devil is in the details.

In this case the obvious truth, no matter how unpleasant, is that sometimes the only way you can get a detainee to give up information you want is through torture.