on the eve of the Senate report being released on Torture...

[djAdvocate]

i want to reiterate not only my moral objection to the practice of torture,
but my belief that it is of no material value whatsoever.

i also want to point out that it is well known at this time that over 100 men have
been beaten to death in custody in Iraq.  this was uncovered by the film taxi to the
dark side, and the materials used to make it- largely ignored in the US. 

the program was reviewed and approved all the way to the top.  senior officials
knew about it, and if there were any justice in this world, they would be tried
in the Hague for it.  but simply airing out what happened will suffice.

i have spent a lot of money on NRCAT for the last 5-10 years waiting for this
day, when the atrocities committed by the Bush administration will become
widely known, and he will continue his downward spiral as the worst president
in the last century, and maybe ever.

i have been arguing with the pro-torture, laugh about waterboarding cheerleaders
of the program for over a decade now.  it would be nice if the report would cause
them to fall silent in shame.  we will see how that goes.

i just wanted to get this down NOW so the facts as i presently see them, and have
seen them for a long long time, will be down in black and white before they get
the more wide airing they deserve.  i hope that it has a serious impact not only
on the perception of torture (that it is an act of retribution and terror designed
to elicit false confessions, not a method for gathering meaningful intelligence), but
also cast a very dark shadow on those that have perpetrated it.

long live Diliwar!

[Virgil Showlion]

I share your moral objections to torture, but I'm nowhere as convinced as you that it's "of no material value whatsoever". It's expensive, grizzly, time-consuming, widely condemned, and I don't buy the argument that military officials "just don't understand that it doesn't work". They're not stupid or oblivious people, and there's no logical reason why they would continue to use these torturous interrogation techniques if the techniques didn't avail anything.

I can accept that torture provides unreliable intel. Leads would still need to be checked out, corroborated, etc. But there's a vast chasm between "unreliable" and "of no material value whatsoever".

Make your argument on moral grounds and leave material value arguments out of it. Torture is wrong regardless of how valuable it is to military intelligence.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 3, 2014 23:35:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I share your moral objections to torture, but I'm nowhere as convinced as you that it's "of no material value whatsoever". It's expensive, grizzly, time-consuming, widely condemned, and I don't buy the argument that military officials "just don't understand that it doesn't work". They're not stupid or oblivious people, and there's no logical reason why they would continue to use these torturous interrogation techniques if the techniques didn't avail anything.

i didn't say that they didn't unveil anything.  i said that they were of no material value in terms of intelligence.  i stand by that.

the perpetrators in this case are either very poor students of history, or didn't care about those lessons.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 3, 2014 23:35:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I can accept that torture provides unreliable intel. Leads would still need to be checked out, corroborated, etc. But there's a vast chasm between "unreliable" and "of no material value whatsoever".

Make your argument on moral grounds and leave material value arguments out of it. Torture is wrong regardless of how valuable it is to military intelligence.

i said that i object to it at the moral level, Virgil.  the problem is one of "exigent circumstances".  i am taking on that issue head on, rather than skirting around it.  that is how the practice is defended, but i believe the Senate report will back me up both assertions i made in paragraph one.

i will explain all of this, later.  there is a short explanation (offered here), and a really detailed one, which will arrive shortly. 

[Virgil Showlion]

I'll wait for the report, but don't expect it to have anything like "torture is of no material value whatsoever" in it. I've seen several government-commissioned reports over the years indicating that torture does have material value.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 4, 2014 0:05:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'll wait for the report, but don't expect it to have anything like "torture is of no material value whatsoever" in it. I've seen several government-commissioned reports over the years indicating that torture does have material value.

yes, i have seen them, too.  after researching their claims, i no longer believe them.

to be clear: when i say "of no material value", what i mean is that if it were to go away, it would have zero impact on intelligence gathering.

dismissing torture as immoral will not stop torture.  there is probably a Jack Bauer fan club.  i want it to die a quiet, shameful death.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 4, 2014 0:12:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 4, 2014 0:05:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'll wait for the report, but don't expect it to have anything like "torture is of no material value whatsoever" in it. I've seen several government-commissioned reports over the years indicating that torture does have material value.

yes, i have seen them, too.  after researching their claims, i no longer believe them.

to be clear: when i say "of no material value", what i mean is that if it were to go away, it would have zero impact on intelligence gathering.

And again I reject that. Not only because of the reports I've read saying it simply isn't true, but because there's no logical reason whatsoever why the military and various US agencies would continue to use it if it avails nothing of use.

Moreover, if you make an anti-torture argument on an "it's useless" platform rather than one of morality, the obvious workaround is to scientifically augment and improve torture techniques until they become suitably effective. Drugs, sleep deprivation, harsh conditioning, psychological manipulation, invasive brain scans, software to monitor autonomous nervous responses--just find the combination that gives you the biggest bang for your buck.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 4, 2014 0:32:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 4, 2014 0:12:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to be clear: when i say "of no material value", what i mean is that if it were to go away, it would have zero impact on intelligence gathering.

And again I reject that. Not only because of the reports I've read saying it simply isn't true, but because there's no logical reason whatsoever why the military and various US agencies would continue to use it if it avails nothing of use.

again, i didn't say that it produced "nothing of use". 

Moreover, if you make an anti-torture argument on an "it's useless" platform rather than one of morality,

stop right there.  i am making BOTH arguments, here.  the moral argument is the one i am standing on.  however, the moral argument did not stop torture in the past, and it will NOT do so in the future, Virgil.

question: are you new to this topic?

the obvious workaround is to scientifically augment and improve torture techniques until they become suitably effective. Drugs, sleep deprivation, harsh conditioning, psychological manipulation, invasive brain scans, software to monitor autonomous nervous responses--just find the combination that gives you the biggest bang for your buck.

you are missing the point, Virgil.  but as i said before, i will argue it in detail, later.  the reason that i would rather wait is that i am fairly sure that this report will put a lot of the arguments you and others make about torture to rest.  why should i bother making a case, based on my own research, and spend hours and hours posting links to documents that you may or may not believe when i can simply wait for my case to be made by a source that is far more believable than either me or my own sources? 

no, i am going to wait on this.  i suspect that we won't have much to argue about, shortly.

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- i am arguing against torture on BOTH moral AND practical grounds for a very good reason: it is to stop the utilitarian argument in it's tracks.  it is the UTILITARIAN argument that got us into this mess in the first place.  and it is not going to stop until it is addressed.

you can argue the morality of this until your face turns blue- and feel good about it.  you might sleep well at night.  but it will NOT stop torture.  i am sorry, it just won't.  i have seen how it plays out.  it DOES NOT WORK.

i know we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things.  i know that you don't understand my positions, or think that i have not thought them through.  but believe me when i tell you that i have thought this one all the way through.  i have been thinking about the arguments from every* angle for years.  i have watched, read, and studied every* aspect of this issue for a decade.  i have heard every* argument.  the pro-torture argument is based on a whole series of false assumptions.  and i PROMISE you that if the report doesn't expose them, i will.

but not tonight.

*by every, i mean as many as i could find- and i really really looked.

[Virgil Showlion]

stop right there. i am making BOTH arguments, here. the moral argument is the one i am standing on. however, the moral argument did not stop torture in the past, and it will NOT do so in the future, Virgil.

question: are you new to this topic?

I'm enough of a veteran to know that you won't stop torture based on what you're calling the "utilitarian argument", either. If we make the limited utility of torture our primary concern, a logical recourse is to systematically improve torture methods until they're no longer of limited utility.

i know we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. i know that you don't understand my positions, or think that i have not thought them through. but believe me when i tell you that i have thought this one all the way through.

I suspect you've thought them through for many decades. But I also know that at a deep humanitarian level you and a good many other people desperately want to believe that torture doesn't work, and I don't trust your objectivity on the issue.

As you say, the report will be making the arguments, not you.

again, i didn't say that it produced "nothing of use".

What's the difference between "nothing of use" and "nothing of material value"? How can something be of use and yet "have zero impact on intelligence gathering"? If you're trying to say that the resources currently committed to torturous interrogation techniques could be reassigned to other equally-profitable means of intelligence gathering, then just come out and say that.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 4, 2014 8:19:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

stop right there. i am making BOTH arguments, here. the moral argument is the one i am standing on. however, the moral argument did not stop torture in the past, and it will NOT do so in the future, Virgil.

question: are you new to this topic?

I'm enough of a veteran to know that you won't stop torture based on what you're calling the "utilitarian argument", either. If we make the limited utility of torture our primary concern, a logical recourse is to systematically improve torture methods until they're no longer of limited utility.

oh good.  we ARE communicating.

i know we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. i know that you don't understand my positions, or think that i have not thought them through. but believe me when i tell you that i have thought this one all the way through.

I suspect you've thought them through for many decades. But I also know that at a deep humanitarian level you and a good many other people desperately want to believe that torture doesn't work, and I don't trust your objectivity on the issue.

it has nothing to do with what i want.  i am a scientist, Virgil.  i approached this issue at the level of scientific inquiry.  i started by asking the question: why do people torture?, and i ended up here.

As you say, the report will be making the arguments, not you.

again, i didn't say that it produced "nothing of use".

What's the difference between "nothing of use" and "nothing of material value"?

i already explained that.  when i say NOMV, i mean "for intelligence purposes".

How can something be of use and yet "have zero impact on intelligence gathering"? If you're trying to say that the resources currently committed to torturous interrogation techniques could be reassigned to other equally-profitable means of intelligence gathering, then just come out and say that.

it is more complicated than that, but that is close.

[djAdvocate]

Virgil: i want to express my gratitude for your interest in this subject.  it is another obsession of mine, and i think this is going to be a very big year for it.

[Virgil Showlion]

i am a scientist, Virgil. i approached this issue at the level of scientific inquiry.

So says everyone and their pet poodles. It doesn't mean they're objective.

Speaking of which, is this report out yet? Do you have a link to it?

it is more complicated than that, but that is close

You seem to be suggesting that torture has material value, but not for intelligence. So... what then? Are you accusing the US military of institutionalizing sadism?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 5, 2014 23:12:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

i am a scientist, Virgil. i approached this issue at the level of scientific inquiry.

So says everyone and their pet poodles.

no, not everyone says that.  some people have nothing but contempt for the sciences.  some people are indifferent.  still more have no training in the sciences.  i am none of these.

It doesn't mean they're objective.

Speaking of which, is this report out yet? Do you have a link to it?

"the eve of" means soon, in the vernacular.

it is more complicated than that, but that is close

You seem to be suggesting that torture has material value, but not for intelligence.

precisely.

So... what then? Are you accusing the US military of institutionalizing sadism?

don't be silly.  i already listed a couple of reasons.  torture is the best method available for getting a false confession, for example.  if you want someone to say that he is a terrorist, torture them.  people will tell any lie to stop torture.

it also has a very powerful role as a tactic of terrorism.  people will be rightly afraid of being captured if they know they will be tortured.  so, they modify their behavior to not be caught, by, for example, becoming suicide bombers rather than soldiers.

those were rather cynical replies, but you get the idea.

but i want to address your idea that i was somehow accusing the US military of being wantonly sadistic.  i think it is quite the opposite, actually.  they want to do the right thing.  but here is how it went down.  when someone like Rumsfeld tells you that you are dealing with a high value suspect, and that American lives are in danger if you don't get "information", and that you are to "take the gloves off" to get it, that is an atrocity generating situation.  but it is not the guy who does the torturing that is to blame for those atrocities, imo.  it is the guy that told him that there were no rules. 

i have deep sympathy for the men that got caught up in this.  it is the higher-ups that should have their necks rung for this stupid 1% policy.  it was not only ill advised, it was utterly immoral, at it's core.

[Virgil Showlion]

those were rather cynical replies, but you get the idea.

All the things you're suggest torture is good for are useless or counterproductive, so I see no difference between your position and "torture is useless".

And since I reject your thesis that world governments (including the US military) would cling to useless interrogation techniques in spite of the costs and political blowback, we're back to where we started.

Please post a link to the report when you get it.

Is it a partisan report, or is it bipartisan?

people will tell any lie to stop torture.

That's why you do it repeatedly. Make it clear to prisoners that you're able to verify leads, and set rigorous examples. Prisoners that provide genuine leads are spared future torture. Prisoners that speak lies are repeatedly tortured until they provide a genuine lead or they die.

I find the subject disturbing, hence my inquests into it have been limited, but apparently interrogators have a large arsenal of other psychological tactics. I've read that a skilled torturer can get his victim to sympathize with him, preying on the victim's willingness to reach out in gratitude when the pain stops. Furthermore, the "advanced interrogation techniques" used by the US military include sleep deprivation, hypersensory stimuli, etc., which can make prisoners so mind-addled that they have no clue what they're saying. They'll babble out conversations with relatives, mistake people's identities, lose all inhibition and sense of judgment. All of that can produce names, dates, places, and other verifiable leads.

[billisonboard]

Apr 5, 2014 23:12:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Are you accusing the US military of institutionalizing sadism?

Well, based on my first hand experience as a guest at one of their boot camps, ...

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2014 2:06:20 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

those were rather cynical replies, but you get the idea.

All the things you're suggest torture is good for are useless or counterproductive,

i disagree.  i would describe them as primary functions of torture.

so I see no difference between your position and "torture is useless".

you could describe them as "a tuna melt", if you wish.  makes no difference to me.

And since I reject your thesis that world governments (including the US military) would cling to useless interrogation techniques in spite of the costs and political blowback, we're back to where we started.

from a false premise, an infinite number of false conclusions can be drawn.

Please post a link to the report when you get it.

i'll get it the same time you do.  they are not producing it for me. 

Is it a partisan report, or is it bipartisan?

i believe it is bipartisan.

people will tell any lie to stop torture.

That's why you do it repeatedly.

yes, because, you know, immorality is so much better the 141st time.....

Make it clear to prisoners that you're able to verify leads, and set rigorous examples. Prisoners that provide genuine leads are spared future torture. Prisoners that speak lies are repeatedly tortured until they provide a genuine lead or they die.

that is not how it generally works, Virgil.  the problem with torture, is that you are already convinced that someone knows something when you start.  you won't stop until you have got it.  and if the person you are interrogating knows NOTHING?  atrocity.....generating.....situation.

I find the subject disturbing, hence my inquests into it have been limited, but apparently interrogators have a large arsenal of other psychological tactics.

oh yes.  because pulpifying a man's legs and hanging him by his wrists (tied behind his back) from the ceiling for days at a time is just so good for loosening up facts.  right.  over 100 men were beaten to death during interrogation, Virgil.  does that sound like a well controlled and tactical situation to you?

I've read that a skilled torturer can get his victim to sympathize with him, preying on the victim's willingness to reach out in gratitude when the pain stops.

i have read that a skilled interrogator can get way more out of a man than any torturer.

Furthermore, the "advanced interrogation techniques" used by the US military include sleep deprivation, hypersensory stimuli, etc., which can make prisoners so mind-addled that they have no clue what they're saying. They'll babble out conversations with relatives, mistake people's identities, lose all inhibition and sense of judgment. All of that can produce names, dates, places, and other verifiable leads.

sure.  but so can standard techniques.  so then, the question becomes: why torture?

[EVT1]

Virgil scares me now.  Torture, government murder in the name of the people, sheesh.  He's a Texan all right.

IMO anyone that could torture someone is sick, anyone that authorizes it is sick, and anyone that supports it is sick.  Congratulations- you are an example of how low humanity can sink.

Pretty much explains their stance on health care too.

Human life is shit unless it is my family.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2014 20:58:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Virgil scares me now.  Torture, government murder in the name of the people, sheesh.  He's a Texan all right.

IMO anyone that could torture someone is sick, anyone that authorizes it is sick, and anyone that supports it is sick.  Congratulations- you are an example of how low humanity can sink.

Pretty much explains their stance on health care too.

Human life is shit unless it is my family.

i don't think he is arguing for torture, EVT.  he is doing what i do.  he is "narrow arguing".  he is taking me to task for saying that i believe based on everything i have read that torture is of no material value for interrogation (or to put it another way, we would gain just as much intelligence if torture were not used).  i posit this with the same ease that the torture community says "torture works".  what is required is that one digs down in either assertion to figure out what they mean. 

the reason i am speaking in generalities on this subject, and adopting fairly strident positions is that i suspect that the Senate report is basically going to back me up on this.  if i am wrong, then i will be spending a lot of time here backing up my assertion.

the argument for torture is the same argument that is used for the necessity of whipping slaves: you have to do it to get work out of them, and to keep them from escaping.  neither are true.

[Virgil Showlion]

yes, because, you know, immorality is so much better the 141st time.....

We're not talking about morality. The reason we're not talking about morality is because you've repeatedly insisted that US politicians won't respect a moral argument. By process of elimination that leaves only the utilitarian argument, and torturing a man 141 times until he sweats blood is perfectly acceptable from a purely utilitarian standpoint. You picked this battleground, not me.

and if the person you are interrogating knows NOTHING? atrocity.....generating.....situation.

And I absolutely agree. But again, if we throw out moral issues, then the only thing that matters is the intel at the end, not the suffering/deaths of the prisoners.

does that sound like a well controlled and tactical situation to you?

No, and I'm not defending torture. I'm debunking your argument that it has no material value to the intelligence community. I'm demonstrating why you cannot simply throw away the moral argument when it comes to opposing torture.

sure. but so can standard techniques. so then, the question becomes: why torture?

That is the question. The reasons you've suggested torture is all the rage strike me as plainly useless and counterproductive, hence I'm sticking with my original thesis that standard interrogation techniques aren't as effective as the torturous ones. I don't think US military intelligence is run by a bunch of idiots who don't know or care about what techniques produce what data.

Apr 6, 2014 20:58:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Virgil scares me now.  Torture, government murder in the name of the people, sheesh.  He's a Texan all right.

IMO anyone that could torture someone is sick, anyone that authorizes it is sick, and anyone that supports it is sick.  Congratulations- you are an example of how low humanity can sink.

Pretty much explains their stance on health care too.

Human life is shit unless it is my family.

I'm not defending torture, sir. Kindly read the entire thread for context before you start flinging muck.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2014 21:49:20 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

yes, because, you know, immorality is so much better the 141st time.....

We're not talking about morality. The reason we're not talking about morality is because you've repeatedly insisted that US politicians won't respect a moral argument. By process of elimination that leaves only the utilitarian argument, and torturing a man 141 times until he sweats blood is perfectly acceptable from a purely utilitarian standpoint. You picked this battleground, not me.

well, you know that is not true.  neither of us picked the battlefield, or torture would never have been used.  stop making this an ad hominem argument, Virgil.  it is totally boring at that level.  tyia.

and if the person you are interrogating knows NOTHING? atrocity.....generating.....situation.

And I absolutely agree. But again, if we throw out moral issues, then the only thing that matters is the intel at the end, not the suffering/deaths of the prisoners.

not if it can be shown that torture is of no material value for intelligence purposes.  if that is TRUE, then this can be WON at the utilitarian level.  i find it both fascinating and somewhat depressing that you don't.

does that sound like a well controlled and tactical situation to you?

No, and I'm not defending torture. I'm debunking your argument that it has no material value to the intelligence community. I'm demonstrating why you cannot simply throw away the moral argument when it comes to opposing torture.

i never claimed that you were defending torture.  but you seem to think that it is being done in a scientific way.  it is not.  it is done in an atrocity producing way- same as it was during the time of Ghengis Kahn.

sure. but so can standard techniques. so then, the question becomes: why torture?

That is the question. The reasons you've suggested torture is all the rage

huh?  where did i claim it was "all the rage"?  no, these are the same arguments that have been used for centuries.  surely you know that.  there is no "fashion" to torture.  it is just torture.

strike me as plainly useless and counterproductive, hence I'm sticking with my original thesis that standard interrogation techniques aren't as effective as the torturous ones.

i would suggest you abandon that position.  but if you don't do so now, i think you will soon enough.

I don't think US military intelligence is run by a bunch of idiots who don't know or care about what techniques produce what data.

you have a very interesting view of who is doing the torture, and under what circumstances.  it doesn't comport well with facts.  but, as i say, you will find that out soon enough, if you don't know already.

Apr 6, 2014 20:58:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Virgil scares me now.  Torture, government murder in the name of the people, sheesh.  He's a Texan all right.

IMO anyone that could torture someone is sick, anyone that authorizes it is sick, and anyone that supports it is sick.  Congratulations- you are an example of how low humanity can sink.

Pretty much explains their stance on health care too.

Human life is shit unless it is my family.

I'm not defending torture, sir. Kindly read the entire thread for context before you start flinging muck.

you will note i already said that. 

[djAdvocate]

Virgil: the planners of the "new torture" are very poor students of history.  they are the same folks that think we won in VietNam, that the USA is the sole beacon of hope in the world, and that we are always, infallably, on the side of good in the world.

it surprises me that you buy their illusions about torture, given how skeptical you are about everything else.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 6, 2014 22:00:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil: the planners of the "new torture" are very poor students of history.  they are the same folks that think we won in VietNam, that the USA is the sole beacon of hope in the world, and that we are always, infallably, on the side of good in the world.

it surprises me that you buy their illusions about torture, given how skeptical you are about everything else.

I suppose it wouldn't blow my socks off to learn that they've all succumbed to a mass delusion about the usefulness of torture, but I definitely don't consider it the most likely explanation.

you will note i already said that.

I did. Thank you.

i would suggest you abandon that position. but if you don't do so now, i think you will soon enough.

...

you have a very interesting view of who is doing the torture, and under what circumstances. it doesn't comport well with facts. but, as i say, you will find that out soon enough, if you don't know already.

Well, hopefully the Senate report will help to enlighten me to the relative ineffectiveness of torture.

Or... in the event that it turns out to be the "Torture is A-OK Report", I'll at least be able to isolate the exact moment where your heart rips in two.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2014 22:23:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 6, 2014 22:00:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil: the planners of the "new torture" are very poor students of history.  they are the same folks that think we won in VietNam, that the USA is the sole beacon of hope in the world, and that we are always, infallably, on the side of good in the world.

it surprises me that you buy their illusions about torture, given how skeptical you are about everything else.

I suppose it wouldn't blow my socks off to learn that they've all succumbed to a mass delusion about the usefulness of torture, but I definitely don't consider it the most likely explanation.

i can't tell you how pleased i am to hear that.

you will note i already said that.

I did. Thank you.

i would suggest you abandon that position. but if you don't do so now, i think you will soon enough.

...

you have a very interesting view of who is doing the torture, and under what circumstances. it doesn't comport well with facts. but, as i say, you will find that out soon enough, if you don't know already.

Well, hopefully the Senate report will help to enlighten me to the relative ineffectiveness of torture.

what i expect that report to point out is how the claims of the administration don't comport with reality.  i also expect it to cast a dark shadow on those that have long insisted otherwise.  don't get caught in it, my friend.

Or... in the event that it turns out to be the "Torture is A-OK Report", I'll at least be able to isolate the exact moment where your heart rips in two.

i am considerably less worried about that prospect than losing our bet on the CA budget. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 6, 2014 22:23:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 6, 2014 22:00:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil: the planners of the "new torture" are very poor students of history.  they are the same folks that think we won in VietNam, that the USA is the sole beacon of hope in the world, and that we are always, infallably, on the side of good in the world.

it surprises me that you buy their illusions about torture, given how skeptical you are about everything else.

I suppose it wouldn't blow my socks off to learn that they've all succumbed to a mass delusion about the usefulness of torture, but I definitely don't consider it the most likely explanation.

you will note i already said that.

I did. Thank you.

i would suggest you abandon that position. but if you don't do so now, i think you will soon enough.

...

you have a very interesting view of who is doing the torture, and under what circumstances. it doesn't comport well with facts. but, as i say, you will find that out soon enough, if you don't know already.

Well, hopefully the Senate report will help to enlighten me to the relative ineffectiveness of torture.

Or... in the event that it turns out to be the "Torture is A-OK Report", I'll at least be able to isolate the exact moment where your heart rips in two.

please watch this, Virgil.  disclosure: i am a heavy contributor to NRCAT:

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 23, 2014 14:46:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 6, 2014 22:23:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I suppose it wouldn't blow my socks off to learn that they've all succumbed to a mass delusion about the usefulness of torture, but I definitely don't consider it the most likely explanation.

I did. Thank you.

Well, hopefully the Senate report will help to enlighten me to the relative ineffectiveness of torture.

Or... in the event that it turns out to be the "Torture is A-OK Report", I'll at least be able to isolate the exact moment where your heart rips in two.

please watch this, Virgil.  disclosure: i am a heavy contributor to NRCAT:

It's a compelling video, and I agree with their statements and conclusions wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately it doesn't address the two issues we debated on the utilitarian fulcrum (rather than the moral fulcrum) of the debate: 1) Did the torture avail information that couldn't otherwise have been obtained? And: 2) If the answer to 1 is "No.", why were the US military and US executive branch so insistent (and persistent) in using torture?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 23, 2014 23:38:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 23, 2014 14:46:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

please watch this, Virgil.  disclosure: i am a heavy contributor to NRCAT:

It's a compelling video, and I agree with their statements and conclusions wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately it doesn't address the two issues we debated on the utilitarian fulcrum (rather than the moral fulcrum) of the debate: 1) Did the torture avail information that couldn't otherwise have been obtained?

actually it did.  one person interviewed described it as a "net loss" for the intelligence community.  that is precisely my claim.  if you didn't hear it, i will get you the time stamp so you can more easily find it.

And: 2) If the answer to 1 is "No.", why were the US military and US executive branch so insistent (and persistent) in using torture?

that question was also answered, but somewhat elliptically.  what we had in the post 911 era was an atrocity generating situation.  on the one hand, we had (50) years of historical practice from experts which said that the techniques we had were good enough, and that would result in actionable intelligence.  on the other hand, we had zealots who were operating on the ASSUMPTION that captured individuals had actionable knowledge, and it was just a matter of "getting it out of them".  when the standard techniques didn't work, the professionals were taken out of the picture, and the rookies were told to "take the gloves off".  it didn't work, because most of the men that were tortured had no information.  the only thing that torture does in that situation is illicit false confessions and misdirections which consume vast resources to ferret out (aka "net loss").

i would love it if the end result was that Rumsfeld and Cheney and the architects of this disastrous idea were held accountable for their crimes, but i would settle for us making a firm pact to never allow this to happen again.

i want to add one more thing, since there are some that will think i want everyone who engaged in this practice strung up: that is not the case.  i think the people that carried this out were in an impossible situation.  if you are put in a room with a suspect, told that the CIA and Rumsfeld KNOWS that this person has intelligence that could save the lives of his fellow soldiers (again, it was generally soldiers that carried this programme out- experienced investigators knew better) who he has SWORN TO PROTECT, the end result is predictable.  i don't hold the guys who thought they were saving lives by killing or torturing some "towel head" nearly as accountable as the ones who put them in the situation where that result was predictable.

may they rot in hell for it.

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- actually that assessment of mine in the previous post is GENEROUS and KIND to the torture program.  what actually happened was far worse than what i described.  are you familiar with "the one percent doctrine"?

[Virgil Showlion]

it didn't work, because most of the men that were tortured had no information. the only thing that torture does in that situation is illicit false confessions and misdirections which consume vast resources to ferret out (aka "net loss").

Again: how do you know it didn't work?

The directors of the programs are saying it did work. The pro-torture propaganda pieces like "Zero Dark Thirty" are saying it worked. And the simple fact that results-oriented people have continued it for more than a decade suggests that it isn't net loss. Surely if the torture availed nothing but useless leads they'd have quit within a few years and cut their losses. I see no logical reason why they'd continue dredging the lake if they weren't occasionally coming up with a valuable piece of salvage. Yes there will be false leads and disinformation to sift out, but such is the nature of intelligence gathering.

We're agreed they're not justified in what they've done, but all indications are that they value torturous interrogation techniques quite highly, even after many years. Your theory on why (correct me if I'm wrong) basically amounts to "they're delusional idiots who fail to realize they aren't extracting information of exceptional value". I see no evidence of this. That's what I'm hoping this senate report would provide.

are you familiar with "the one percent doctrine"?

I wasn't, but I just read the Wiki article on it.

Since you didn't capitalize, I'm assuming you're referring to the doctrine rather than Suskind's book. Specifically: "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

What about it?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 24, 2014 14:07:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

it didn't work, because most of the men that were tortured had no information. the only thing that torture does in that situation is illicit false confessions and misdirections which consume vast resources to ferret out (aka "net loss").

Again: how do you know it didn't work?

you won't like the answer, Virgil.  i have suggested four times that we wait for the report to back me up on this, and you keep asking me the same thing over and over again.  shall i make it a 5th?

The directors of the programs are saying it did work.

the question is not whether it works.  if i use a hammer to get into my car rather than a key, that also "works".  the question is whether it works better than anything else out there.  not just as well, but BETTER.  the reason being that the moral hazard of torture is not worth it if it works no better than any other method (utilitarian argument, again).

The pro-torture propaganda pieces like "Zero Dark Thirty" are saying it worked. And the simple fact that results-oriented people have continued it for more than a decade suggests that it isn't net loss.

i have generally found you to be reasonable, but you are not being reasonable here.  so let me give you a counterexample.  let's say that you find out that a parent is abusing their kids.  let's say you approach them, and they say "they had it coming to them.  and besides, after i abused them, they damned well sure followed the rules".  no matter what you tell that parent about the inefficacy- nay- counterproductiveness of their abuse, would you REALLY expect them to change their tune and say "you are right- i could have done something else that worked just as well"?  really?  

Surely if the torture availed nothing but useless

please stop saying that.  i have already pointed out that it is useful.  it has a point.  i have already conceded that about it several times.

leads they'd have quit within a few years and cut their losses.

i am not sure how long the torture programme went on.  most of what i have read about the most serious abuses is that they happened in 2002-2003.  i know of some incidents that went on in 2004, as well.  i am not sure how prevalent the practice was after that.  if you do, please let me know, but i think 2001-2004 would qualify as "a few years".

I see no logical reason why they'd continue dredging the lake if they weren't occasionally coming up with a valuable piece of salvage. Yes there will be false leads and disinformation to sift out, but such is the nature of intelligence gathering.

precisely right

We're agreed they're not justified in what they've done, but all indications are that they value torturous interrogation techniques quite highly, even after many years. Your theory on why (correct me if I'm wrong) basically amounts to "they're delusional idiots who fail to realize they aren't extracting information of exceptional value". I see no evidence of this. That's what I'm hoping this senate report would provide.

ibid

are you familiar with "the one percent doctrine"?

I wasn't, but I just read the Wiki article on it.

Since you didn't capitalize, I'm assuming you're referring to the doctrine rather than Suskind's book.

yes.

Specifically: "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

What about it?

it is the foundation of the torture program, imo: "we will torture 100 people to get information out of one".  we have 99 innocent people being tortured, now, and we are getting no more information out of the last one than we would have got had we not tortured (imo).  this is the basis of my continual outrage on this issue, Virgil.  hopefully you understand it better, now.

edit: this is why i said i was being generous, earlier.  i had previously stated that we tortured people when we believed that we could gain actionable intelligence from it.  i don't actually think that is true.  this programme was carried out in accordance with the 1% doctrine, meaning that we knew we would be torturing lots of innocent people, but it simply didn't matter: "it was worth it".

one final note: once you go down this path, there is no turning back, Virgil.  if you convince yourself that there is a moral justification for doing this, then the ONLY guard against it is gone.  you will create any fiction you can think of to excuse it.  these are not deluded people.  they are smart men.  but they are, in the end, men.  and for the record, i am not complaining about waterboarding.  that is minor compared to what we did, which i presume will be in the senate report.  pulpifying a person's legs and hanging them from their wrists to the point where they die from internal bleeding is the sort of stuff i am talking about.