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 Apr 24, 2014 15:37:54 GMT -5
I'll repeat my question every time you boldly repeat the statement that "the only thing torture does is...".
I acknowledge you've said this many times. And yet you continue to come out with statements like "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')."
Clearly you're saying torture hasn't worked period with this latter statement. No comparisons. No relativity. A net loss is an absolute gauge.
Another example:
"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."
Clearly you're saying that neither the standard techniques nor the torturous techniques worked. The prisoners had no information to divulge. The interrogators were trying to draw blood from a stone.
So when you insist "the question is not whether it works. ... the question is whether it works better than anything else out there. not just as well, but BETTER." amidst your bold statements that torture categorically hasn't provided anything of value because prisoners knew nothing and spewed naught but misinformation, can you perhaps see the root of my confusion?
It depends on the person, the capacity in which I knew them, and what the abuse was. "Really."
And made statements that refute it just as many times.
I saw articles about "stress positions", sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc., all the way up to 2011, when the courts finally shut it down... sort of. The worst offenses I read about were all from 2002-2004, but supposedly the US outsourced most of the "high-value targets" to secret prisons in Turkey at that time, hence I have no idea whether the worst tactics went away or simply went underground.
If the report backs you up on this statement, then I agree the current torture techniques are unacceptable from a utilitarian standpoint as well as from a moral standpoint.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2014 18:23:40 GMT -5
I'll repeat my question every time you boldly repeat the statement that "the only thing torture does is...". I acknowledge you've said this many times. And yet you continue to come out with statements like "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')." Clearly you're saying torture hasn't worked period with this latter statement. No comparisons. No relativity. A net loss is an absolute gauge. really, Virgil? you have stooped to taking me totally out of context to make a point? this is a tactic that is normally reserved for only the worst posters. totally beneath you, bro. the quote you produced above was talking about torturing INNOCENT PEOPLE. and yes, if you are torturing someone who knows NOTHING about the thing for which you are torturing, then you are going to get NOTHING of any value. if you are doing that 99% of the time, then you are going to get 99% misdirection and false testimony. was i really that unclear? because i thought i was totally clear.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2014 18:34:40 GMT -5
So when you insist "the question is not whether it works. ... the question is whether it works better than anything else out there. not just as well, but BETTER." amidst your bold statements that torture categorically hasn't provided anything of value because prisoners knew nothing and spewed naught but misinformation, can you perhaps see the root of my confusion? i suppose. but i have tried to say things like it provided no net material value for intelligence purposes, not that it was of "no value", or that "nothing was ever discovered". i am sure that some things were. but then the question becomes whether torture was necessary to obtain those things, or simply sufficient.It depends on the person, the capacity in which I knew them, and what the abuse was. "Really."even if that exposed them to prosecution? i find that assertion highly dubious. And made statements that refute it just as many times. no, i have not. i have stated that the usefulness is not for intelligence gathering several times, but i have never denied that torture has a purpose. it does. it has many many purposes. it is "useful". it is utterly depraved, and immoral, and of no material value (or net value, if you prefer) from an intelligence perspective.I saw articles about "stress positions", sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc., all the way up to 2011, when the courts finally shut it down... sort of. The worst offenses I read about were all from 2002-2004, but supposedly the US outsourced most of the "high-value targets" to secret prisons in Turkey at that time, hence I have no idea whether the worst tactics went away or simply went underground. me neither. but i think that after the Lynde affair went public the majority of this s*&t stopped.If the report backs you up on this statement, then I agree the current torture techniques are unacceptable from a utilitarian standpoint as well as from a moral standpoint. i don't think there are any "current torture techniques". i doubt highly that they were used much beyond 2004. but as you say, we shall see.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2014 18:41:02 GMT -5
Virgil: i like the term "net loss" for describing intelligence "gained" by torture. that describes what i believe, and what i expect the facts to show: that we spent more time chasing down dead leads (and wasting resources doing it) than we saved by whatever we gained from it. but that is only half of my argument. the other have is that we could have done better NOT using torture, and that we were torturing far more innocent people who knew NOTHING than we were torturing people who actually had information, or knew people who did. i know that you don't believe any of that. that is fine. don't believe it. the whole reason for posting this thread is that i suspect that this won't be a matter for debate, shortly. i acknowledge that you and i agree that torture is morally wrong, so this is mostly windowdressing for the relativists.
|
|
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 Apr 24, 2014 21:55:12 GMT -5
You've summarized most of my earlier confusion. The first "half of (your) argument" is an absolute one: Is torture better than nothing; is it a net benefit? The "other half" is the half relative to alternative techniques. You freely jumped between the two without indicating that you were making two independent arguments. You were in fact arguing three simultaneous points, the third being that by "no material value" you meant that torture has value, just not as a means of collecting reliable intel. You proceeded to characterize torture as "the best method available for getting a false confession" and the best way to ensure combatants "modify their behavior to not be caught, by ... becoming suicide bombers rather than soldiers", as though these obvious liabilities, now craftily equipped with "best way to..." clauses, somehow explained your earlier insistence that you could not, would not, and did not claim torture is useless. When I challenged you: "All the things you're suggest torture is good for are useless or counterproductive," your reply was, "i disagree. i would describe them as primary functions of torture." Since I wasn't willing to accept that you'd gone off your nut and were claiming that false leads, false confessions, and an army of suicide bombers blowing up your troops are super useful, I figured this was your roundabout way of admitting that you didn't have a clue why torture was useful but didn't want to contradict your earlier assertion that it was. Finally, "of no material value" isn't synonymous with "of no net value", and neither term is synonymous with "of lesser net value than the alternatives". For clarity, I would use "of no net value" for the first (absolute) half of your argument, and "of lesser value than the alternatives" for the second (relative) half of your argument. Or let's just call them the no-net-value (NNV) hypothesis and lesser-relative-value (LRV) hypothesis, respectively. For the third half of your argument, let's just agree to disagree on whether eliciting false confessions and engineering suicide bombers is "useful". I included the adjective "current" because (as I said before) one option for the utilitarian is to improve torture techniques until their utility surpasses that of standard interrogation techniques. Hence a report confirming either the NNV or LRV hypotheses does not rule out torture in the mind of a utilitarian. And hence why way back in Reply #1 I admonished you "Make your argument on moral grounds and leave material value arguments out of it." There's no "prosecution" in your analogy. What you want to know is: Do I, Virgil, REALLY believe that a CIA director or military consultant who authorized all kinds of torturous techniques and was then inundated with reports telling him that he'd sold his soul for nothing--that the men he'd ordered tortured knew next to nothing and the LRV hypothesis was true--do I REALLY believe he'd acknowledge his failure and change course? My answer is: I would expect him to vehemently deny any wrongdoing, and to dote on all the successes and insist on the necessity of what he'd done, but I wouldn't expect him to continue wasting his time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 0:11:07 GMT -5
You were in fact arguing three simultaneous points, the third being that by "no material value" you meant that torture has value, just not as a means of collecting reliable intel. i believe i explicitly stated this in the opening sentence of OP, and i also believe i have repeated it many times on this thread. the argument FOR torture revolves entirely around it's ability to produce actionable intelligence (and not an unreasonable amount of wild goose chases). if i was not clear in paragraph one that this is what i was talking about, i certainly was in the final paragraph of the OP. i am sorry if you developed a misunderstanding, but that is what these discussions are for: to clarify any misunderstandings. that is all i have been doing in this thread ever since, but if you can't accept that defense, i will just have to live with that.You proceeded to characterize torture as "the best method available for getting a false confession" and the best way to ensure combatants "modify their behavior to not be caught, by ... becoming suicide bombers rather than soldiers", um, no. i never argued that latter point. i am sure of it, because i don't think that suicide bombing is related to torture in any but the most incidental and superficial way.as though these obvious liabilities, now craftily equipped with "best way to..." clauses, somehow explained your earlier insistence that you could not, would not, and did not claim torture is useless. no, i never claimed it was useless. i claimed that it was of no material value for intelligence. i am losing track of how many times i have repeated that.When I challenged you: "All the things you're suggest torture is good for are useless or counterproductive," your reply was, "i disagree. i would describe them as primary functions of torture." that's right. torture is designed as an instrument of terror. it also functions nicely as retribution, if not in an overt way, in the more subtle sense. and, of course, it is useful for eliciting false confession.Since I wasn't willing to accept that you'd gone off your nut and were claiming that false leads, false confessions, and an army of suicide bombers blowing up your troops are super useful, I figured this was your roundabout way of admitting that you didn't have a clue why torture was useful but didn't want to contradict your earlier assertion that it was. again, i never claimed that torture lead to suicide bombing. but i don't like using the word "useless" in these discussions. everything has a purpose.Finally, "of no material value" isn't synonymous with "of no net value", it was for me. i just couldn't find the right words on my own. you can either accept that fact, or you can make believe that i changed my position midstream. but the fact is that i am sometimes inelegant, despite your silver pen award.and neither term is synonymous with "of lesser net value than the alternatives". For clarity, I would use "of no net value" for the first (absolute) half of your argument, and "of lesser value than the alternatives" for the second (relative) half of your argument. those are the same argument, from a utility standpoint. torture has to be better than the alternatives due to the moral hazards present compared to other alternatives.Or let's just call them the no-net-value (NNV) hypothesis and lesser-relative-value (LRV) hypothesis, respectively. For the third half of your argument, let's just agree to disagree on whether eliciting false confessions and engineering suicide bombers is "useful". it is absolutely useful if you intend to try someone in a military court on the basis of those confessions, Virgil. do i need to recount the particulars of the military justice system here, or do you know it well enough on your own?I included the adjective "current" because (as I said before) one option for the utilitarian is to improve torture techniques until their utility surpasses that of standard interrogation techniques. Hence a report confirming either the NNV or LRV hypotheses does not rule out torture in the mind of a utilitarian. And hence why way back in Reply #1 I admonished you "Make your argument on moral grounds and leave material value arguments out of it." i have already said that the utilitarian argument is windowdressing FOR US, but i believe it is the best place to place my chips in this decidedly utilitarian universe if i wish to ultimately prevail in this debate, not with you, but with others- you know- the folks that call themselves PRAGMATISTS.There's no "prosecution" in your analogy. What you want to know is: Do I, Virgil, REALLY believe that a CIA director or military consultant who authorized all kinds of torturous techniques and was then inundated with reports telling him that he'd sold his soul for nothing--that the men he'd ordered tortured knew next to nothing and the LRV hypothesis was true--do I REALLY believe he'd acknowledge his failure and change course? My answer is: I would expect him to vehemently deny any wrongdoing, and to dote on all the successes and insist on the necessity of what he'd done, but I wouldn't expect him to continue wasting his time. and that is pretty much what happened, right? well, for most of those involved anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 0:36:21 GMT -5
Virgil- again, i am making a distinction between "useless" and "a net loss for intelligence purposes" (previously described as "of no material value for intel").
useless implies that there is no reason to do it. there totally is. it is NOT the moral reason that is popularized on shows like 24, however. the "24" scenario is built on a series of assumptions that are so rare to only make good fiction. the first assumption it makes is that the intel you are getting is for an imminent threat. after years of torturing people, without any threats carried out OR any actionable intel preventing imminent threats resulting from torture, that idea kind of loses it's sting to any rational person. the second assumption is that the person you are torturing actually knows anything about it. again, if you torture a bunch of people, and never get anything from it, you start to realize one of two things: either the people you are torturing are the wrong people (immoral at every level), or that torture is ineffective for getting information (note: i am not claiming that nobody has given information due to torture. i am sure that some have. but i am equally sure that they were likely to give information without torture, and that the vast majority of information is of no use, or worse, for intelligence purposes). and finally, you have to assume that the moral hazard of torturing someone is worth the intel you are getting- in other words that the intel you are getting is going to save more lives than you are destroying by torturing people.
i don't think that this (need to torture) is going to be born out by the senate report. i have very good reasons for thinking that, but i would rather just wait for the report than discuss them at this time. you will just repeat the argument that people would not do this if it were not effective, which is very much the "company line" on this. the "company line" is going to suffer a huge setback soon enough, and we can discuss the fallout, then.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 25, 2014 0:40:00 GMT -5
Yet another reason to be ashamed of the USA.
None of this was the Jack Bauer nuke on the way scenario- it was torture and two wrong do not make a right. Takes a really sick person to do it as well- and a worse war criminal to order it. No consequences for them of course.
|
|
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 Apr 25, 2014 0:54:50 GMT -5
So when you said in Reply #14: 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. ...you meant what exactly? And what part of "...your earlier insistence that you could not, would not, and did not claim torture is useless." is confusing you here? They certainly are not. If the senate report comes out and states "Wow, was torture ever effective. We saved thousands of US lives.", this would be a clear refutation of the NNV hypothesis, but would not be a refutation of the LRV hypothesis. I would expect you to go into damage control mode and claim, "OK, fine. It saved thousands of lives. But that's no proof we couldn't have saved just as many lives using standard interrogation techniques." If the report comes out and states "We obtained so little useful intel from torture that we spent more time chasing our tails than chasing down terrorists.", this would be a clear proof of both hypotheses. Personally I expect the report will be massive, dreary, and completely ambiguous. It will suggest that torture worked here, and here, and maybe here, but not there, and generated a false lead there, etc. At no point will it actually conclude whether the torture was worse than nothing (i.e. re: the NNV hypothesis) or conclude whether the torture was worse than standard interrogation techniques (i.e. re: the LRV hypothesis). And in fact, I doubt it will even compare the "advanced" interrogation techniques to the standard ones. That's just the nature of these reports. People expect them to come out and become the coup de grace for the opposing side of the argument, but objective reality is never that one-sided. They don't care about bloody confessions. You think if they're corrupt enough to mass-torture prisoners to obtain confessions, they're not also corrupt enough to dispense with justice entirely? Why do you think they invented "unlawful enemy combatants" and threw away habeus corpus? So they could have a whole bunch of secret trials with coerced confessions? As for "it also functions nicely as retribution", it may shock you to learn that torture for the purposes of retribution is still sadism--something you've repeatedly denied was a motivating factor. So which is it? Yes or no?
|
|
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 Apr 25, 2014 0:56:22 GMT -5
You hope.
My own predictions are in the reply above.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 10:28:34 GMT -5
You hope. you don't?My own predictions are in the reply above. noted.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 10:30:42 GMT -5
So when you said in Reply #14: 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. ...you meant what exactly? my apologies. i didn't remember bringing this into the debate. point conceded. i really don't think it is a very important factor, however. it was more of a "thought experiment".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 10:35:24 GMT -5
They certainly are not. If the senate report comes out and states "Wow, was torture ever effective. We saved thousands of US lives.", this would be a clear refutation of the NNV hypothesis, but would not be a refutation of the LRV hypothesis. I would expect you to go into damage control mode and claim, "OK, fine. It saved thousands of lives. But that's no proof we couldn't have saved just as many lives using standard interrogation techniques." If the report comes out and states "We obtained so little useful intel from torture that we spent more time chasing our tails than chasing down terrorists.", this would be a clear proof of both hypotheses. this is pretty much exactly what i expect. what i do NOT expect it to say is "standard interrogation methods work better". that is what this thread is for.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 10:39:53 GMT -5
They don't care about bloody confessions. You think if they're corrupt enough to mass-torture prisoners to obtain confessions, they're not also corrupt enough to dispense with justice entirely? Why do you think they invented "unlawful enemy combatants" and threw away habeus corpus? So they could have a whole bunch of secret trials with coerced confessions? um....yeah? what do you think, Virgil?As for "it also functions nicely as retribution", it may shock you to learn that torture for the purposes of retribution is still sadism--something you've repeatedly denied was a motivating factor. So which is it? Yes or no? i don't think it was intended in the program, but it clearly happened. in the case of Dilawar, the torturers liked to prod his pulpified legs to hear him scream "God Is Great" (in Arabic, of course). that is from their own testimony, so there is no point denying it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 11:02:28 GMT -5
The New York Times reported that: Nobody can defend that. It happens in wartime, but it is never right, and it needs to be punished. That is should be officially sanctioned by a government of the United States is outragious and shameful. the story is a lot deeper than that, and a lot broader. the torturers were not professionals. they were infantry that were reassigned to the task. they were told that Dilawar and others had "information that could save the lives of soldiers", and were given no instructions on how severe to make his punishment, only to "take the gloves off" (quoting Rumsfeld). he was beaten to a pulp, but at some point, his interrogators were convinced that he KNEW NOTHING. they kept beating him anyway because "they liked the sound of him crying out for God". Dilawar was not alone. at least 100 men died due to torture. the Army reports show cause of death as "homicide", so even they don't deny it. i remember someone from congress, or maybe Bush, saying during this "the US does not torture". well, yes it does. however, i would like it very much if we could make that statement now, and mean it. i actually feel sorry for the torturers. they were put in an impossible situation. but i feel sorrier for the victims.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 11:15:00 GMT -5
one more thing i would like to add......
most of the detainees at Bagram and Gitmo were not obtained on the field of battle. they were obtained by bounty, mostly from Pakistan. the bounty was large enough to constitute the average earnings of a Pakistani for a year of work. this method of sweeping up people results in very poor correlation to the intended purpose, because those that collected the bounty were not required to produce evidence that these folks had any connection to AQ. i can imagine many scenarios where a person was suspected of being connected to AQ, or had been seen with someone suspected of being connected to AQ, or was connected to the Taliban (also good for bounty) in Afghanistan.....or, was simply someone that was not liked in Pakistan, and was set up for a long road trip. in any case, the vast majority of those swept up (and eventually tortured) had no connection whatsoever to AQ. only about half were connected to EITHER AQ OR THE TALIBAN. and something like 86% were not from the field of battle.
we did a lot wrong. it wouldn't have been OK if we had simply questioned them and let them go. but torturing them really changed the tapestry of this for me. the idea that i could be minding my own business one day in Pakistan, and end up dead within a month in US hellhole Bagram is really unsettling.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 12:01:51 GMT -5
Thank you dj for filling in the blanks. I did not mean to give short shrift to the whole story, I just wished to remind the conversation of the abject brutality of the crime itself. It can get lost in moral justifications and relevancies. Some things we just do not do, as Americans, and as people. And certainly as- fill in your religion and family surname. i figure most people don't know the details. some don't care. but i know, and i care, so i share it whenever i can.
|
|
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 Apr 25, 2014 19:14:51 GMT -5
How do you reconcile your quotes like 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. and i actually feel sorry for the torturers. they were put in an impossible situation. with the sadistic behaviour at Abu Ghraib, and statements like "they kept beating him anyway because they liked the sound of him crying out for God"? Clearly both situations had nothing to do with soldiers urgently pushing the limits to obtain life-saving information. Whatever it may have started out as, it had progressed to wanton sadism. I get your point that the authorities who created the perfect conditions for these kinds of atrocities to happen are just as culpable, and I agree with you, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of "impossible situation" here. Perhaps with the routine waterboarding, stress positions, etc., but definitely not with this. These soldiers have blood on their hands. Legally a man may get a free pass because he was ordered to do something in wartime, but not morally. Morally, each of us is accountable for our actions. Cowards shall not inherit the Kingdom.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 25, 2014 19:46:10 GMT -5
Leaving the Kingdom out of it, each of us is, indeed, morally accountable. What's more, we, as Americans, are apt to feel morally accountable for atrocities done in our name. At least, I do. It shames me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 21:06:46 GMT -5
How do you reconcile your quotes like 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. and i actually feel sorry for the torturers. they were put in an impossible situation. with the sadistic behaviour at Abu Ghraib, and statements like "they kept beating him anyway because they liked the sound of him crying out for God"?. i think that one thing leads to another, inexorably. but i have a lot of human sympathy, Virgil. a LOT. it is something i learned from my Christian faith. i am grateful for it. it helps me deal with the awful.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2014 21:29:00 GMT -5
I get your point that the authorities who created the perfect conditions for these kinds of atrocities to happen are just as culpable, and I agree with you, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of "impossible situation" here. well, i take responsibility for not explaining it well enough, then. let me try again:
you are a soldier. you are taught two things above all others: obey orders, and protect your fellow soldiers. you are given a "suspect" that you are to "interrogate". you have no training in this area, and you are not offered any. you are told that this "suspect" has information that can be used to save the lives of your fellow soldiers. NOTE: that is linked to one of primary purposes. you are then told to use "whatever means necessary" to obtain that information. you are also (probably) told that time is off the essence.
you are in this situation. what do you do?
Perhaps with the routine waterboarding, stress positions, etc., but definitely not with this. These soldiers have blood on their hands. Legally a man may get a free pass because he was ordered to do something in wartime no, legally nobody gets a pass. but few are held to account., but not morally. Morally, each of us is accountable for our actions. Cowards shall not inherit the Kingdom. indeed
|
|
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 May 7, 2014 12:21:40 GMT -5
That's like saying "You are Josef Stalin. Do you rule Russia with an iron fist or not?"
Firstly, I'm not a soldier, nor would I become one. I haven't been taught to obey orders unquestioningly, nor would I enter into a contract where I was required to do so.
Notwithstanding these factors, if I was ordered to interrogate a suspect, I'd seek training at my soonest opportunity. I'd order books on interrogation techniques, consult with professional interrogators, observe interrogations, study up on techniques to cold read and hot read suspects. You've stated that such training would convince me non-torturous techniques are more effective than torturous ones, hence "by whatever means necessary" would naturally suggest "by the most effective means possible" and therefore "by non-torturous techniques". Since the reality is that I (the soldier) used torturous techniques, we'll have to ignore this break from reality along with the previous two.
I couldn't stomach torturing a man, much less one begging for mercy or crying out to God, so we'll have to ignore this as well.
I would only enter into an interrogation having established limits on how far I'd go before conceding that a suspect held no information, which makes break-from-reality #5.
Ignoring all of the above, then yes I could see myself in an "impossible situation", believing that torturing a man was the right thing to do. Likewise if I discount the 101 differences between myself and Josef Stalin, I could certainly see myself ruling Russia with an iron fist. That doesn't mean moral accountability is somehow absorbed into those 101 differences.
Do I hold men morally accountable for their actions even when they're acting under orders and with the best of intentions? I do.
When is this report going to come out, anyway? It's been over a month now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2014 12:51:15 GMT -5
That's like saying "You are Josef Stalin. Do you rule Russia with an iron fist or not?" is it? i think it is very close to the situation that US servicemen found themselves in.Firstly, I'm not a soldier, nor would I become one. I haven't been taught to obey orders unquestioningly, nor would I enter into a contract where I was required to do so. Notwithstanding these factors, if I was ordered to interrogate a suspect, I'd seek training at my soonest opportunity. I'd order books on interrogation techniques, consult with professional interrogators, observe interrogations, study up on techniques to cold read and hot read suspects. You've stated that such training would convince me non-torturous techniques are more effective than torturous ones, actually, if you would consult books, i would imagine one of them would be the UMC. that book would tell you that torture is against international law. that would put you in rather an interesting bind.hence "by whatever means necessary" would naturally suggest "by the most effective means possible" and therefore "by non-torturous techniques". Since the reality is that I (the soldier) used torturous techniques, we'll have to ignore this break from reality along with the previous two. I couldn't stomach torturing a man, much less one begging for mercy or crying out to God, so we'll have to ignore this as well. I would only enter into an interrogation having established limits on how far I'd go before conceding that a suspect held no information, which makes break-from-reality #5. Ignoring all of the above, then yes I could see myself in an "impossible situation", believing that torturing a man was the right thing to do. Likewise if I discount the 101 differences between myself and Josef Stalin, I could certainly see myself ruling Russia with an iron fist. That doesn't mean moral accountability is somehow absorbed into those 101 differences. you are implying that this is a reducio ad absurdum, Virgil. it isn't.Do I hold men morally accountable for their actions even when they're acting under orders and with the best of intentions? I do. When is this report going to come out, anyway? It's been over a month now. i know. Obama is sitting on it. further proof that he is disappointingly like Bush.
|
|
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 May 7, 2014 19:56:29 GMT -5
I don't know what the Latin term for it is. In English, I would call it a "self-defeating hypothetical"--a hypothetical that asks me what I'd do in a given situation even though I'd need to suspend practically everything about myself to reach that situation in the first place.
For example: DJ, suppose you've just bombed a New York commuter train and killed everyone aboard. Do you turn yourself into police?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2014 21:13:52 GMT -5
I don't know what the Latin term for it is. In English, I would call it a "self-defeating hypothetical"--a hypothetical that asks me what I'd do in a given situation even though I'd need to suspend practically everything about myself to reach that situation in the first place. For example: DJ, suppose you've just bombed a New York commuter train and killed everyone aboard. Do you turn yourself into police? that analogy doesn't work for me. being a soldier is not the equivalent of being Josef Stalin or a terrorist. i only suggested that you signed up for a job, and then you are ASKED to do something that is questionable, and how you would respond to that. i didn't suggest that you would do what was asked, i simply asked what you would do. what i outlined in bold is pretty much precisely the situation that soldiers found themselves in. there was no time to "study", Virgil. you either did your job, or you quit. you pretty much said you would have quit. i would, too. so, i guess that is a real viable option: face courtmartial for insubordination, and take your chances in military court. they didn't do that. but they believed their superiors. well, at first anyway. later, they really didn't. war is ugly. but it really need not be this ugly. it doesn't get much uglier than beating a man* to death who had nothing to do with anything more than wanting to feed his family by driving a cab. *humble and pious by all accounts
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2014 21:20:53 GMT -5
I don't know what the Latin term for it is. In English, I would call it a "self-defeating hypothetical"--a hypothetical that asks me what I'd do in a given situation even though I'd need to suspend practically everything about myself to reach that situation in the first place. i disagree, but conditionally: you need only have been in the military at the wrong place, and the wrong time, to have fallen into this trap. oh, actually, there is one more thing all of these men who did this had in common: they were big, powerful, intimidating men. so, you had to be that, too. other than that, i was not suggesting that you be anything other than what you are. i was not asking you to become the monster. i was asking you to face that possibility squarely, and realize that it really is a choice, and how easy it would be to make it, if you were the type of person who follows orders rather than questions them. it is only self defeating if you discover you are one of Milgram's 37.
|
|
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 May 7, 2014 23:09:00 GMT -5
You're missing the point. You're setting up a hypothetical that institutes a fundamental break from reality, and then asking what "I" (presumably the real "I") would do when the answer clearly depends on why the hypothetical "I" has broken from reality. "Virgil, suppose you come across a bear in the woods. What would you do?" - A fair hypothetical. I don't have to fundamentally rethink "Virgil" to imagine this situation and come up with an answer. "Virgil, suppose a man grabs you out of your minivan and tosses you aside. What would you do?" - Again, a fair hypothetical. Although I drive with a seat belt and I don't own a minivan, I don't have to fundamentally alter "Virgil" to imagine a situation where I'm driving a minivan, not wearing a seat belt, to respond to the hypothetical. "Virgil, suppose you've just bombed a New York City commuter train. Do you turn yourself into police?"Yes...? No? Maybe on a Tuesday...? Why on Earth would I bomb a NYC commuter train? Did I enjoy bombing it? Did I intend to bomb it? I can't imagine any circumstances where I would bomb a commuter train. Hence you're basically asking, "Virgil, imagine you're nothing like yourself. Would you do this?" That's why I call it a self-defeating hypothetical. "Self-defeating" because you're obviously interested in what "I" would do given a set of factors, but none of these factors could reasonably apply to me while still letting me be me. "Virgil, imagine you're a dedicated solider, and you've agreed to follow orders unquestioningly, and you have no training nor any desire to be trained, and you believe your superiors, and you're a big, burly guy, and you can stomach torturing people, and you have no set limits on how far you'll go? What do you do in this situation?"What do you think I'll do? This by itself is a fundamental break. My beliefs preclude me from following many of the orders that a military commander could give me, and they require me to be up front about it. The military would never accept this doctrine, ergo I could never serve in the military. You're saying that my entire stint as an interrogator would last only a few weeks? Because that's all the time it would take to study.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 9:03:20 GMT -5
You're missing the point. You're setting up a hypothetical that institutes a fundamental break from reality, no, i am presenting a situation that closely resembles one that actually happened, Virgil. unless you were talking about the very idea of you being a soldier.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 9:05:29 GMT -5
"Virgil, suppose you've just bombed a New York City commuter train. Do you turn yourself into police?"Yes...? No? Maybe on a Tuesday...? Why on Earth would I bomb a NYC commuter train? Did I enjoy bombing it? Did I intend to bomb it?. no, Virgil. i didn't say "let's say you were a torturer". what i said was "let's say someone TOLD you to torture". i really didn't think that was much of a stretch. i didn't ask you anything that i could not answer, for the record.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 9:08:00 GMT -5
This by itself is a fundamental break. . that is why i said "conditionally". but i don't thing it takes much imagination to imagine that you are a soldier. if i was wrong in your case, then i apologize for stretching your mind to the breaking point- but i don't think most other people here have trouble imagining it.
|
|