djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2016 18:21:50 GMT -5
Would it be considered "torture" if the "women must be covered from head to foot" people were forced to watch "Girls Gone Wild" videos for 14 days straight (with a few hours a day for sleeping allowed)? there is a whole list of stuff that is in the TAT. not sure if that is on it or not.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 23, 2016 18:52:32 GMT -5
I believe he's saying that there are loan sharks that rely exclusively on non-violent techniques to coerce clients into repaying and loan sharks that are willing to put crowbars to kneecaps, and the latter are considerably more successful than the former. The analogy is somewhat contrived in the sense that the loan shark isn't looking for intel, but I'm betting verrip's conclusion is right. his conclusion is right, but nobody said that torture never resulted in good intel. my entire point is that whether it does or not, it doesn't excuse torture. i know we agree, so it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge the point. He's accusing you of saying that non-torturous interrogation (NTI) is categorically superior to torture. As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly your position. It's not "torture might afford better results in some circumstances, but we still shouldn't do it". It's "there simply are no circumstances under which torture is more likely to yield better results". In the torture thread, this was the very crux of your "torture has no material value" argument. In this thread, you've reiterated the same position in Reply #31 ("there is no evidence that torture yields more useful information"), Reply #43 ("a good interrogator is every bit as good at extracting information as a torturer"), Reply #93 ("other, more moral means, are just as likely (if not more likely) to achieve the same ends, and therefore [torture] should pretty much NEVER be used"). As I see it, there are three separate questions floating around in there: - Does DJ believe that torture can never yield intel in a situation where NTI would fail to yield intel?
- Does DJ believe that in general, speaking macroscopically in terms of a priori probabilities, torture is less likely to yield reliable intel than NTI?
- If the set of all scenarios requiring intel from an enemy combatant is partitioned into different "domains of circumstance" (e.g. "the government has six hours to find the location of a suitcase nuke"; "the government can easily verify the correctness/incorrectness of any intel provided"; "the government is a loan shark and terrorists are clients"), does DJ believe that among these domains, there does not exist at least one where, speaking macroscopically in terms of probabilities, torture is more likely to yield reliable intel than NTI?
The answers to #1 and #2 are obvious: No, and Yes, respectively. The answer to #3 is murkier. Based on everything you've said thus far, my answer at this point would be "Yes". As in: "DJ believes there are no domains of circumstance identifiable a priori under which torture is more likely to yield better results". If this is true, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion on issue in #3 disagrees with you, including verrip and myself. We hold that torture can indeed add "material value" over and above NTI, even in a macroscopic sense, in certain domains of circumstance. As I've made perfectly clear, I don't believe this fact in any wise justifies torture, but my misgivings don't make it any less of a fact if it happens to be true. What verrip and others are chapping your hide about is the same thing that I was chapping your hide about in the 2013 torture thread: the answer to #3 comes across as "yes", and it smacks of you denying the utility of torture because of your loathing for it. If the answer to #3 is "No", I would say it's incumbent upon you to acknowledge and clarify this, since it definitely isn't clear at this point that "No" is the correct answer.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Mar 23, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -5
Because I feel we are in very real trouble as a country and as a world because we try to be civilized in our dealings with uncivilized people That's like trying to reason with a two year old. That's a bit similar with the take that the Europeans had on Natives when they arrived in the new world. I'm open to the use of torture to obtain information (unreliable as it may be qualified) but I'm not saying that the method should aply only to those that are not Americans. To be more precise, I don't agree with the torture of an individual classified as a POW unless his actions were perpetrated against civilians and his capture did not take place in a battlefield. That would automatically exclude any torture done by the service members(military) have our own home grown terrorists and kidnappers that I would not have a problem with them being tortured. Their acts are heinous and they don't deserve any mercy. War on the other hand has either been sanctioned by the nation or their fighting is done for survival/defense. That is ofcourse a very thin and gray line but nonetheless a line.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 23, 2016 19:07:40 GMT -5
The least satisfying answers I've read are those which assert that torture does not and cannot elicit important truths. I realize it is a popular rationale, but popularity does not make it true. If it were, bookies would never get paid and neither would loan sharks. People want to avoid physical pain and they will go to great lengths to avoid it. Agreed that lying is one way to try and avoid it, but at its best lying will only potentially defer the timing of the pain, not eliminate it. I have no problem with those who oppose all torture all the time, but ludicrously inept attempts at reading the minds of torturers and their victims as creatures of considered rational action are intellectually insulting. I don't remember anyone saying torture couldn't elicit important truths. I think its currently more popular actually to believe torture will get you truths you wouldn't get otherwise.
Loan sharks aren't looking for truths, they are only looking for money so using them is kind of a bad example, because they stop when they get the money they know they lent you. In the case of torture for information, the torturer does not know what they are looking for, so there is no natural stop point. The torture does not stop because you tell the truth, it stops when the torturers think they have gotten what they need or give up on trying to get information through torture.
When the truth is 'I don't know' or 'there is no link between X and Y', torture rarely stops. Because those who are doing torture believe you do know or that there is a link between X and Y. Telling the torturer the truth does not stop the pain if they aren't hearing the answer they want. Did you read one of my earlier posts about some guy that was tortured with a fake burial because the powers that be were convinced there was a link between I think Al Qaeda and Saddam? The guy had to lie to stop the torture. They would not believe the truth. The truth got him nothing. He was tortured by our government for at least 5 years, handed over to another country and died in that country's jail.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 23, 2016 19:37:30 GMT -5
I have a feeling your 6 hours to find a suitcase nuke scenario is much less common in the federal government than the long game torture for the war on terror. Yes if you have a limited time scenario torture might make sense if interrogation isn't working. You will know soon enough whether the intel is good or bad.
What concerns me and what water boarding has been used for, is not one time scenarios with a quick deadline. Its long term, we don't know what the heck you know, can't verify it easily, but we assume there's a bunch of stuff you know you should be telling us. It leads to torture for years with sometimes no actionable intelligence.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 23, 2016 19:56:55 GMT -5
I have a feeling your 6 hours to find a suitcase nuke scenario is much less common in the federal government than the long game torture for the war on terror. Yes if you have a limited time scenario torture might make sense if interrogation isn't working. You will know soon enough whether the intel is good or bad.
What concerns me and what water boarding has been used for, is not one time scenarios with a quick deadline. Its long term, we don't know what the heck you know, can't verify it easily, but we assume there's a bunch of stuff you know you should be telling us. It leads to torture for years with sometimes no actionable intelligence.
I agree with you. DJ and I are more interested in torture in a broad philosophical sense. Even disregarding the immorality of the act, we've long since agreed that torture as the US employed it in the "war on terror" caused more problems than it solved. It didn't make sense from a utilitarian standpoint either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2016 22:58:02 GMT -5
his conclusion is right, but nobody said that torture never resulted in good intel. my entire point is that whether it does or not, it doesn't excuse torture. i know we agree, so it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge the point. He's accusing you of saying that non-torturous interrogation (NTI) is categorically superior to torture....... no, that is NOT what he said. he claims that WE are saying that torture: cannot elicit important truths. sorry for the large font, but you are not getting the standard font. now, are we going to argue about the definition of "cannot"? because i can't imagine any statement that is more clear than this. this is not a qualitative statement- it is an absolute one. the claim is that we are saying that torture yields NOTHING. this claim is totally false. we never said that. in fact, we are sure that torture CAN elicit "important truths"..... in an utterly unnecessary and immoral way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 23, 2016 23:08:28 GMT -5
his conclusion is right, but nobody said that torture never resulted in good intel. my entire point is that whether it does or not, it doesn't excuse torture. i know we agree, so it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge the point. He's accusing you of saying that non-torturous interrogation (NTI) is categorically superior to torture. As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly your position. It's not "torture might afford better results in some circumstances, but we still shouldn't do it". It's "there simply are no circumstances under which torture is more likely to yield better results". In the torture thread, this was the very crux of your "torture has no material value" argument. In this thread, you've reiterated the same position in Reply #31 ("there is no evidence that torture yields more useful information"), Reply #43 ("a good interrogator is every bit as good at extracting information as a torturer"), Reply #93 ("other, more moral means, are just as likely (if not more likely) to achieve the same ends, and therefore [torture] should pretty much NEVER be used"). As I see it, there are three separate questions floating around in there: - Does DJ believe that torture can never yield intel in a situation where NTI would fail to yield intel?
- Does DJ believe that in general, speaking macroscopically in terms of a priori probabilities, torture is less likely to yield reliable intel than NTI?
- If the set of all scenarios requiring intel from an enemy combatant is partitioned into different "domains of circumstance" (e.g. "the government has six hours to find the location of a suitcase nuke"; "the government can easily verify the correctness/incorrectness of any intel provided"; "the government is a loan shark and terrorists are clients"), does DJ believe that among these domains, there does not exist at least one where, speaking macroscopically in terms of probabilities, torture is more likely to yield reliable intel than NTI?
The answers to #1 and #2 are obvious: No, and Yes, respectively. The answer to #3 is murkier. Based on everything you've said thus far, my answer at this point would be "Yes". As in: "DJ believes there are no domains of circumstance identifiable a priori under which torture is more likely to yield better results". If this is true, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion on issue in #3 disagrees with you, including verrip and myself. We hold that torture can indeed add "material value" over and above NTI, even in a macroscopic sense, in certain domains of circumstance. As I've made perfectly clear, I don't believe this fact in any wise justifies torture, but my misgivings don't make it any less of a fact if it happens to be true. What verrip and others are chapping your hide about is the same thing that I was chapping your hide about in the 2013 torture thread: the answer to #3 comes across as "yes", and it smacks of you denying the utility of torture because of your loathing for it. If the answer to #3 is "No", I would say it's incumbent upon you to acknowledge and clarify this, since it definitely isn't clear at this point that "No" is the correct answer. as to the rest of your point, which had NOTHING to do with my objection to what verrip said: at a certain point, "reliability" ceases to be an issue. the issue is ANY intelligence. and YES, there is a situation like the railcar situation, under utilitarian ethics, using exigent circumstances, an otherwise immoral action can be considered moral. but for the i-don't-know-how-many'th time, it does NOT forgive the general use of torture. in Taxi To The Darkside, we learn that the interrogators (most of whom were later tried in military court) were told by their superiors to "take the gloves off", that the suspects "had information" that would "save lives" and that their "fellow soldiers were depending on them" to get it. the film quite correctly calls that an "atrocity generating situation", and THAT, my friend, is what the general case of torture looks like. at least to me. how about you?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2016 6:32:33 GMT -5
He's accusing you of saying that non-torturous interrogation (NTI) is categorically superior to torture. As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly your position. It's not "torture might afford better results in some circumstances, but we still shouldn't do it". It's "there simply are no circumstances under which torture is more likely to yield better results". In the torture thread, this was the very crux of your "torture has no material value" argument. In this thread, you've reiterated the same position in Reply #31 ("there is no evidence that torture yields more useful information"), Reply #43 ("a good interrogator is every bit as good at extracting information as a torturer"), Reply #93 ("other, more moral means, are just as likely (if not more likely) to achieve the same ends, and therefore [torture] should pretty much NEVER be used"). As I see it, there are three separate questions floating around in there: - Does DJ believe that torture can never yield intel in a situation where NTI would fail to yield intel?
- Does DJ believe that in general, speaking macroscopically in terms of a priori probabilities, torture is less likely to yield reliable intel than NTI?
- If the set of all scenarios requiring intel from an enemy combatant is partitioned into different "domains of circumstance" (e.g. "the government has six hours to find the location of a suitcase nuke"; "the government can easily verify the correctness/incorrectness of any intel provided"; "the government is a loan shark and terrorists are clients"), does DJ believe that among these domains, there does not exist at least one where, speaking macroscopically in terms of probabilities, torture is more likely to yield reliable intel than NTI?
The answers to #1 and #2 are obvious: No, and Yes, respectively. The answer to #3 is murkier. Based on everything you've said thus far, my answer at this point would be "Yes". As in: "DJ believes there are no domains of circumstance identifiable a priori under which torture is more likely to yield better results". If this is true, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion on issue in #3 disagrees with you, including verrip and myself. We hold that torture can indeed add "material value" over and above NTI, even in a macroscopic sense, in certain domains of circumstance. As I've made perfectly clear, I don't believe this fact in any wise justifies torture, but my misgivings don't make it any less of a fact if it happens to be true. What verrip and others are chapping your hide about is the same thing that I was chapping your hide about in the 2013 torture thread: the answer to #3 comes across as "yes", and it smacks of you denying the utility of torture because of your loathing for it. If the answer to #3 is "No", I would say it's incumbent upon you to acknowledge and clarify this, since it definitely isn't clear at this point that "No" is the correct answer. as to the rest of your point, which had NOTHING to do with my objection to what verrip said: at a certain point, "reliability" ceases to be an issue. the issue is ANY intelligence. and YES, there is a situation like the railcar situation, under utilitarian ethics, using exigent circumstances, an otherwise immoral action can be considered moral. but for the i-don't-know-how-many'th time, it does NOT forgive the general use of torture. in Taxi To The Darkside, we learn that the interrogators (most of whom were later tried in military court) were told by their superiors to "take the gloves off", that the suspects "had information" that would "save lives" and that their "fellow soldiers were depending on them" to get it. the film quite correctly calls that an "atrocity generating situation", and THAT, my friend, is what the general case of torture looks like. at least to me. how about you? Generally? No. I honestly don't know what the "general case of torture" looks like. Your description matches what it looked like under the so-called "non-professional torturers" in the Bush/Cheney regime, but how reasonable it is to extrapolate this to torture generally I have no idea. I you don't mind indulging me, what is the answer to #3? Equivalently, you can answer the following question: Hypothetically, suppose you have no moral qualms about the use of torture to extract intel from enemy combatants. You're appointed head of the intelligence agency and asked to find all the circumstances where--probabilistically speaking--NTI performs better at extracting intel than torture, and likewise all the circumstances where torture performs better at extracting intel than NTI. For example, you might conduct experiments and determine that treating captured civilians (suspected of being UECs) humanely yields better quality intel more often than does torturing them. You might also determine that breaking the kneecaps of captured local leaders yields better quality intel more often than does treating them humanely when the required intel is numbers and locations. At the end of a long, long war, you've accrued a list of situations where NTI works best and a list of situations where torture works best. The question is (and the answer is equivalent to the answer of #3): In your reasonable opinion, would the list of situations where torture works best be empty? As I said before, if your answer is "Yes", you're at odds with everyone else who's expressed an opinion on the matter thus far. Also as I said before: this is purely an issue of utility. I'm asking you to answer the question in a moral vacuum.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 24, 2016 6:45:25 GMT -5
Don't do it DJ. Its a trap. He's trying vacuum away your morals!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2016 10:28:44 GMT -5
as to the rest of your point, which had NOTHING to do with my objection to what verrip said: at a certain point, "reliability" ceases to be an issue. the issue is ANY intelligence. and YES, there is a situation like the railcar situation, under utilitarian ethics, using exigent circumstances, an otherwise immoral action can be considered moral. but for the i-don't-know-how-many'th time, it does NOT forgive the general use of torture. in Taxi To The Darkside, we learn that the interrogators (most of whom were later tried in military court) were told by their superiors to "take the gloves off", that the suspects "had information" that would "save lives" and that their "fellow soldiers were depending on them" to get it. the film quite correctly calls that an "atrocity generating situation", and THAT, my friend, is what the general case of torture looks like. at least to me. how about you? Generally? No. I honestly don't know what the "general case of torture" looks like. Your description matches what it looked like under the so-called "non-professional torturers" in the Bush/Cheney regime, but how reasonable it is to extrapolate this to torture generally I have no idea. I you don't mind indulging me, what is the answer to #3? Equivalently, you can answer the following question: Hypothetically, suppose you have no moral qualms about the use of torture to extract intel from enemy combatants. You're appointed head of the intelligence agency and asked to find all the circumstances where--probabilistically speaking--NTI performs better at extracting intel than torture, and likewise all the circumstances where torture performs better at extracting intel than NTI. For example, you might conduct experiments and determine that treating captured civilians (suspected of being UECs) humanely yields better quality intel more often than does torturing them. You might also determine that breaking the kneecaps of captured local leaders yields better quality intel more often than does treating them humanely when the required intel is numbers and locations. At the end of a long, long war, you've accrued a list of situations where NTI works best and a list of situations where torture works best. The question is (and the answer is equivalent to the answer of #3): In your reasonable opinion, would the list of situations where torture works best be empty? As I said before, if your answer is "Yes", you're at odds with everyone else who's expressed an opinion on the matter thus far. Also as I said before: this is purely an issue of utility. I'm asking you to answer the question in a moral vacuum. the general case looks like what we did- where we are torturing cab drivers, food prep people, and innocent Pakistani's who got caught up for bounty. what happens on "24" is what you and others IMAGINE torture looks like in an ideal world- where every "terrorist" has crucial information that must be squeezed out on short notice to save lives. as far as #3 goes, i don't know how to answer it. and the reason is that the ticking time bomb doesn't leave you the option of building a relationship with the detainee. you are assuming that all SITUATIONS are identical to make this hypothesis, and that is not the case. i have already categorically stated that there is a utilitarian argument involving exigent circumstances, and asking the same question over and over again will not elicit a different response, Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2016 10:29:43 GMT -5
Don't do it DJ. Its a trap. He's trying vacuum away your morals!
don't worry about it. i have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject. maybe more than any other fringe topic, honestly. edit: i thought about that last statement. i have actually spent more time looking into media bias, but not by much.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2016 14:54:49 GMT -5
Generally? No. I honestly don't know what the "general case of torture" looks like. Your description matches what it looked like under the so-called "non-professional torturers" in the Bush/Cheney regime, but how reasonable it is to extrapolate this to torture generally I have no idea. I you don't mind indulging me, what is the answer to #3? Equivalently, you can answer the following question: Hypothetically, suppose you have no moral qualms about the use of torture to extract intel from enemy combatants. You're appointed head of the intelligence agency and asked to find all the circumstances where--probabilistically speaking--NTI performs better at extracting intel than torture, and likewise all the circumstances where torture performs better at extracting intel than NTI. For example, you might conduct experiments and determine that treating captured civilians (suspected of being UECs) humanely yields better quality intel more often than does torturing them. You might also determine that breaking the kneecaps of captured local leaders yields better quality intel more often than does treating them humanely when the required intel is numbers and locations. At the end of a long, long war, you've accrued a list of situations where NTI works best and a list of situations where torture works best. The question is (and the answer is equivalent to the answer of #3): In your reasonable opinion, would the list of situations where torture works best be empty? As I said before, if your answer is "Yes", you're at odds with everyone else who's expressed an opinion on the matter thus far. Also as I said before: this is purely an issue of utility. I'm asking you to answer the question in a moral vacuum. the general case looks like what we did- where we are torturing cab drivers, food prep people, and innocent Pakistani's who got caught up for bounty. what happens on "24" is what you and others IMAGINE torture looks like in an ideal world- where every "terrorist" has crucial information that must be squeezed out on short notice to save lives. as far as #3 goes, i don't know how to answer it. and the reason is that the ticking time bomb doesn't leave you the option of building a relationship with the detainee. you are assuming that all SITUATIONS are identical to make this hypothesis, and that is not the case. i have already categorically stated that there is a utilitarian argument involving exigent circumstances, and asking the same question over and over again will not elicit a different response, Virgil. - You state paragraph #1 as though you're an expert on torture in its many forms throughout the ages of man. I'm going to be blunt: aside from watching "Taxi to the Dark Side" and gleaning conclusions from the 2013 Senate report on torture, what do you know about torture?
If you have a Ph.D. in Torturology, I can accept your prognosis of what torture "generally" looks like based purely on your say-so. Barring that, you need to point me to a resource written by an accredited expert that says "all torture generally..." and dares to draw conclusions on all forms of torture administered in all possible circumstances. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
- I agree with you that the torture situations on "24" were phony and contrived, but Hollywood's largess doesn't justify your conclusions about what torture "generally" looks like. I'll grant you that it "generally" looks more like "Taxi to the Dark Side" than "24", but "generally" isn't an answer to #3.
- I am by no means "assuming that all SITUATIONS are identical to make this hypothesis". I can't make the question any more straightforward than I already have, and I'm done banging my head against the keyboard, hence I'm going to pin your final answer down as "I don't know." On that basis, verrip, others, and I have grounds to chap your hide. Why? For lack of imagination. I, for one, have no trouble imagining circumstances where one can conclude a priori that torture would prove more fruitful than NTI, even if these happen to be rarefied circumstances.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2016 15:07:18 GMT -5
the general case looks like what we did- where we are torturing cab drivers, food prep people, and innocent Pakistani's who got caught up for bounty. what happens on "24" is what you and others IMAGINE torture looks like in an ideal world- where every "terrorist" has crucial information that must be squeezed out on short notice to save lives. as far as #3 goes, i don't know how to answer it. and the reason is that the ticking time bomb doesn't leave you the option of building a relationship with the detainee. you are assuming that all SITUATIONS are identical to make this hypothesis, and that is not the case. i have already categorically stated that there is a utilitarian argument involving exigent circumstances, and asking the same question over and over again will not elicit a different response, Virgil. - You state paragraph #1 as though you're an expert on torture in its many forms throughout the ages of man. I'm going to be blunt: aside from watching "Taxi to the Dark Side" and gleaning conclusions from the 2013 Senate report on torture, what do you know about torture?
If you have a Ph.D. in Torturology, I can accept your prognosis of what torture "generally" looks like based purely on your say-so. Barring that, you need to point me to a resource written by an accredited expert that says "all torture generally..." and dares to draw conclusions on all forms of torture administered in all possible circumstances. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
- I agree with you that the torture situations on "24" were phony and contrived, but Hollywood's largess doesn't justify your conclusions about what torture "generally" looks like. I'll grant you that it "generally" looks more like "Taxi to the Dark Side" than "24", but "generally" isn't an answer to #3.
- I am by no means "assuming that all SITUATIONS are identical to make this hypothesis". I can't make the question any more straightforward than I already have, and I'm done banging my head against the keyboard, hence I'm going to pin your final answer down as "I don't know." On that basis, verrip, others, and I have grounds to chap your hide. Why? For lack of imagination. I, for one, have no trouble imagining circumstances where one can conclude a priori that torture would prove more fruitful than NTI, even if these happen to be rarefied circumstances.
1) a great deal more than that. i have read and researched extensively on the subject including international treaties (including the discussions associated with them), historical accounts of the successes and failures of the British and Japanese torture program during WW2, and various other studies and accounts provided to me through Catholic Charities. but i think that TTTDS is an important film in that it documents OUR RECENT TRIP DOWN THIS ROAD. when i say "general use of torture", i am referring to how torture has been done when we recently did it, Virgil. you don't need a PhD to know that. just a modicum of curiosity. it is NOT an "extraordinary claim", and your insistence that it is, is a red herring. if you are wondering how i know what WE did, i am referring specifically to what we did at Bagram, which is accounted in fairly great detail through DOD documentation (paper trail), and through exit interviews with torturers, witnesses, and people who helped design the program. for the black sites torture, most of that was offshored- it was not even done by US personnel in many cases, so yes, i have NO IDEA what was done there (except for some rare accounts, which make it sound, generally speaking, WORSE than what happened in Bagram). do i know what we did in Bagram in 100% of the instance of torture? NO. but i know what we did in over 50% of the cases- and it was not pretty. 2) generally wasn't given as an answer to #3, was it? i was making a statement about what we actually did in Bagram. 3) good for you, i guess. chap away. your imagination knows no limits from what i can tell. that is not a compliment. edit: you and verrip are saying two completely different things, so i doubt he will join you in the chapping. verrip claimed that we said that "torture is totally ineffective". that is false. we never said that. what we said is that it is not NECESSARY. i am not sure that verrip would take us to task for that, but it might be better to ask him than to assume that he is ready to take that trip with you, Virgil.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2016 17:42:10 GMT -5
Now I get that you're defining "generally" as "what the US generally did in the war on terror", which you could have made clear a long time ago. I was using a much broader definition of "generally".
#3 was not a question limited to the scope of Bagram or the war on terror. It has the broadest possible scope: Can we conclude that torture will not outperform NTI for any set of real-world circumstances? By any, I don't mean "any that provably existed during the Bush-era torture program".
I think your problem is that you believe admitting torture reasonably outperforms NTI in some circumstances undermines the moral argument against torture, and you're wrong.
I think you also believe admitting torture outperforms NTI in some circumstances is a proxy argument for "the Bush regime did some things right and some things wrong, and all we need to do is sort out the kinks", which isn't true, or a proxy argument for "there were some bright spots and big payoffs in the Bush regime torture program", which also isn't true.
Certainly one could make these arguments, but that's not what #3 is about.
I sympathize with your not wanting to admit "yes, sometimes crime pays" but the sad fact of the matter is that sometimes crime pays and we look foolish if we don't admit that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2016 17:55:55 GMT -5
Now I get that you're defining "generally" as "what the US generally did in the war on terror", which you could have made clear a long time ago. I was using a much broader definition of "generally". #3 was not a question limited to the scope of Bagram or the war on terror. It has the broadest possible scope: Can we conclude that torture will not outperform NTI for any set of real-world circumstances? By any, I don't mean "any that provably existed during the Bush-era torture program". I think your problem is that you believe admitting torture reasonably outperforms NTI in some circumstances undermines the moral argument against torture, and you're wrong. I think you also believe admitting torture outperforms NTI in some circumstances is a proxy argument for "the Bush regime did some things right and some things wrong, and all we need to do is sort out the kinks", which isn't true, or a proxy argument for "there were some bright spots and big payoffs in the Bush regime torture program", which also isn't true. Certainly one could make these arguments, but that's not what #3 is about. I sympathize with your not wanting to admit "yes, sometimes crime pays" but the sad fact of the matter is that sometimes crime pays and we look foolish if we don't admit that. i only know what the US did, what Great Brittan did during WW2, and what Japan did during WW2. that is not general enough to speak for all torture. and no, i am not afraid of undermining the argument, because torture is wrong in the absolute. we both agree on that. i GENUINELY don't know, Virgil. please believe me and stop bugging me. i don't have enough information to answer that question in the positive/negative like you want me to. i will take being foolishly uncertain over having to correct myself later, thanks.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2016 19:01:22 GMT -5
Now I get that you're defining "generally" as "what the US generally did in the war on terror", which you could have made clear a long time ago. I was using a much broader definition of "generally". #3 was not a question limited to the scope of Bagram or the war on terror. It has the broadest possible scope: Can we conclude that torture will not outperform NTI for any set of real-world circumstances? By any, I don't mean "any that provably existed during the Bush-era torture program". I think your problem is that you believe admitting torture reasonably outperforms NTI in some circumstances undermines the moral argument against torture, and you're wrong. I think you also believe admitting torture outperforms NTI in some circumstances is a proxy argument for "the Bush regime did some things right and some things wrong, and all we need to do is sort out the kinks", which isn't true, or a proxy argument for "there were some bright spots and big payoffs in the Bush regime torture program", which also isn't true. Certainly one could make these arguments, but that's not what #3 is about. I sympathize with your not wanting to admit "yes, sometimes crime pays" but the sad fact of the matter is that sometimes crime pays and we look foolish if we don't admit that. i only know what the US did, what Great Brittan did during WW2, and what Japan did during WW2. that is not general enough to speak for all torture. and no, i am not afraid of undermining the argument, because torture is wrong in the absolute. we both agree on that. i GENUINELY don't know, Virgil. please believe me and stop bugging me. i don't have enough information to answer that question in the positive/negative like you want me to.i will take being foolishly uncertain over having to correct myself later, thanks. I guess I'll have to resort to more... creative... methods to extract the intel I need. Where I did I put that manual Dick Cheney sent me...?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 24, 2016 19:29:28 GMT -5
i only know what the US did, what Great Brittan did during WW2, and what Japan did during WW2. that is not general enough to speak for all torture. and no, i am not afraid of undermining the argument, because torture is wrong in the absolute. we both agree on that. i GENUINELY don't know, Virgil. please believe me and stop bugging me. i don't have enough information to answer that question in the positive/negative like you want me to.i will take being foolishly uncertain over having to correct myself later, thanks. I guess I'll have to resort to more... creative... methods to extract the intel I need. Where I did I put that manual Dick Cheney sent me...? i actually literally laughed out loud at that.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Mar 25, 2016 17:33:09 GMT -5
Depends, what are we defining as torture? Some of the enhanced interrogations techniques that some call torture I don't call torture.
Assuming we can come to a consensus about what constitutes torture, for the most part no. I suppose in theory there could always be some in extremes situation that may warrant it, but those would be highly unlikely, and not an excuse to do it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2016 17:40:35 GMT -5
Depends, what are we defining as torture? Some of the enhanced interrogations techniques that some call torture I don't call torture. ... "I believe torture is wrong so anything I approve of doing is not torture because I would never approve of anything that is wrong." Do I understand correctly?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Mar 25, 2016 17:42:11 GMT -5
Depends, what are we defining as torture? Some of the enhanced interrogations techniques that some call torture I don't call torture. ... "I believe torture is wrong so anything I approve of doing is not torture because I would never approve of anything that is wrong." Do I understand correctly? No
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,746
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Mar 25, 2016 17:46:53 GMT -5
Bring Back Torture, Yes or No?
Your subject line seems to indicate that we have done away with it. The talking heads may say we have but I seriously doubt it. Not like they haven't lied about stuff before So why believe this farce?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2016 18:00:39 GMT -5
what posts would those be? surely none of mine. my posts express that this point is irrelevant. if i loan you $20, and then later beat you unconscious, open your wallet, and get it back, i think you could say that beating the shit out of you "worked" to get my $20 back. however, if ASKING you for my $20 would have got the same result, it does not EXCUSE the beating the shit out of you part. understood? I believe he's saying that there are loan sharks that rely exclusively on non-violent techniques to coerce clients into repaying and loan sharks that are willing to put crowbars to kneecaps, and the latter are considerably more successful than the former. The analogy is somewhat contrived in the sense that the loan shark isn't looking for intel, but I'm betting verrip's conclusion is right. no, i am saying that whether something works or not has nothing to do with whether it should be done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2016 18:02:50 GMT -5
Depends, what are we defining as torture? Some of the enhanced interrogations techniques that some call torture I don't call torture. Assuming we can come to a consensus about what constitutes torture, for the most part no. I suppose in theory there could always be some in extremes situation that may warrant it, but those would be highly unlikely, and not an excuse to do it. waterboarding is torture. or, i should say, it was torture when we tried the Japanese for it in WW2. if you are saying that we are hypocrites, and won't call what we do to others the same thing as we call what they do to us, then yes. i agree with that.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 25, 2016 18:41:46 GMT -5
if you don't want a technique to be 'torture' you just get John Yoo and David Addington to say it isn't and voila'!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2016 18:47:38 GMT -5
if you don't want a technique to be 'torture' you just get John Yoo and David Addington to say it isn't and voila'! add those two to the short list for treaty violations and war crimes.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 26, 2016 0:40:35 GMT -5
"Short list"?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:11:43 GMT -5
yeah...well. ok, never mind. long list.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 26, 2016 1:15:29 GMT -5
All of them.
|
|