1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Waterboarding / Latest Posts

RE: Waterboarding

cleopatra143 — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:44:12 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (7/7/2008)[/b][hr][quote]or NC's suggestion that one must be willing to undergo the experience oneself in order to propose that it might be worthwhile.[/quote]
Cleo, where would you like this couch moved?[/quote]
Thanks! And when you're done I have a tool box that needs moved too. Oh, you're going to need lots of help. :D:P

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:17:48 GMT

[quote]I just would rather we not ever do those sorts of things under any circumstances. [/quote]

Same here. I would rather we not ever have to do a lot of things that I will argue we need to reserve the option to do when and if it is necessary.

And as to the issue of international police working well to interdict terrorism in general, RA, I agree. For the average terrorist, just processing them through the system is fine. For some, holders of potentially vital information, extracting that information this month, instead of in 15 years when it is useless and he writes his memoirs may be imperative to save lives.

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:12:32 GMT

[quote]or NC's suggestion that one must be willing to undergo the experience oneself in order to propose that it might be worthwhile.[/quote]Abraham Lincoln quote, I got it. But hardly related to anything else I posted. :crazy:

I understand your points. They make sense. I just would rather we not ever do those sorts of things under any circumstances. Just my opinion.

Cleo, where would you like this couch moved?

RE: Waterboarding

RabiAkiva — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:48:00 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/6/2008)[/b][hr]If we define everything short of totally kind, gentle, reciprocal, cooperative, and indeed as you've described it altruistic(!) interaction with a source as "torture," we have shut a door on our toolkit for dealing with these new global nuclear age issues.[/quote]

Every day police are rounding up criminals, interrogating them, solving crimes. Those cases are brought to court and wherever the procedure of investigation is challenged, it holds up in court. Go and talk with your local policeman and find out there is a wide toolkit open, sanctioned by the law. None of that is torture, nor is that a gloves-on loving kindness approach.
There is every room to round up terrorist suspects and let them face charges on grounds of the law and have them go through the procedures of the law. In a globalized world, where many of the suspects are outside the boundaries, or their activities are across boundaries, the penal code needs may be a slight adjustment, but there is plenty precedent for penalizing international crimes, like has done with hijacking of planes. In short, with regular methods and court supervision, within the framework of current international treaties and organizations there is so much possible, that one cannot speak of a shut toolkit and must render the exchange we have silly by making it a hurt or kiss duality.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:54:19 GMT

[quote][b]-M- (7/6/2008)[/b][hr]I am w/out words. How come you sit & speculate with the comfort of knowledge that such a thing is not likely to happen to you. This is all bs. There is no scenario that demands anything of set nature.[/quote]

So only people who can expect that they might one day go to prison should rightfully be able to advocate a penal system? That makes about as much sense as RA's suggestion that we use altruism or reciprocity to extract vital information from terrorists, or NC's suggestion that one must be willing to undergo the experience oneself in order to propose that it might be worthwhile.

I'm sure you all want your mechanics to have undergone mechanic school, your doctors to have undergone medical school, and your lawyers and judges to be trained in jurisprudence, yet you are not willing and able to under go such training (time, debt, risk, 'trauma') yourself?

What I'm left speechless by is the level of general sympathy for the slim segment of humanity who might wind up having this sort of interrogation technique applied to them.

Again, we're not talking Abu Ghraib, which was quite simply a massive breach of justice and served no purpose except to expose the sickness of the perpetrators, and the malfeasance of the commanders.

We're talking a tiny fraction of the thousands of insurgents, and combatants who are apprehended and detained every year in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most are either released by coalition forces back onto the street, or to the authorities of their sovereign. A few "high-value" subjects are kept for longer periods, anda few have been, and are being kept indefinitely. Among that tiny fraction (hundreds?) of long-term detainees, there may be 50% who are actual candidates for any form of unpleasant interrogation, and probably a smaller number who may be deemed candidates for truly harsh interrogation. In short, the chance that some totally innocent "wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time" victim, who has nothing to tell winds up being ground down with waterboarding are (in my speculation) small. If someone is being targeted for such an interrogation practice, it is quite likely there is a strong corpus of evidence linking them to criminal acts of terrorism. In short, it is unlikely in my estimation that this sort of approach (and again, leaving flukes like Abu Ghraib aside) will expose large numbers of innocents to wrongful treatment. And no matter what a source knows, he or she ALWAYS has the option to just "sing" tell anything and everything they know. Interrogators who are operating within reasonable constraints will at that point record everything they have to say, and go about the time and effort to corroborate, which most times would tend to clear the subject from any additional interrogation, else reveal that they are playing a game, and get them back onto the waterboard. In sum, most of the guys who have and will suffer this experience are RESISTING requests by coalition interrogators to cooperate and comply fully. If they were to cooperate and comply fully, all the nasty ness would go away like that.

RE: Waterboarding

-M- — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:21:04 GMT

I am w/out words. How come you sit & speculate with the comfort of knowledge that such a thing is not likely to happen to you. This is all bs. There is no scenario that demands anything of set nature.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:17:58 GMT

No matter how fanciful or remote the scenarios in which the highly controlled use of harsh interrogation may be in REAL reality, the argument I'm making is: the door should remain open for those methods as a POSSIBILIY, where the scenario demands it.

If we define everything short of totally kind, gentle, reciprocal, cooperative, and indeed as you've described it altruistic(!) interaction with a source as "torture," we have shut a door on our toolkit for dealing with these new global nuclear age issues. I am arguing that that is a mistake. We should not define ourselves as "good guys" into a highly obstructed and unpragmatic corner in which we will be less able to deal with whatever it is they have to hit us with. Neither should we define ourselves as "any means is justified by the ends of us winning." But there is a wide, and important space betweent those two extremes which need not be marked off as no-man's land by using absolutist, and polarizing rhetoric.

This is exactly the debate going on in U.S. jurisprudential contexts today, so while it is on the surface silly for us to be doing it too, it is not trivial.

RE: Waterboarding

cleopatra143 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:56:15 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (7/6/2008)[/b][hr][quote]I will not read it all; there are too many thing more important than this.[/quote]Wait... huh? Stuff more important than THIS!? :crazy:

Just teasin', Rabi. ;)[/quote]Yup, I think the whole lot of you should come help me move =P

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:50:31 GMT

[quote]I will not read it all; there are too many thing more important than this.[/quote]Wait... huh? Stuff more important than THIS!? :crazy:

Just teasin', Rabi. ;)

RE: Waterboarding

RabiAkiva — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:44:05 GMT

I am sorry guys, my life is a balancing act of where to spend my time and I cannot keep up with the pace of this thread. I cannot read all and apart from scanning it for moderation purposes - I will not read it all; there are too many thing more important than this.

I'll reply to Jerm.

What if.... You know, that's the kind of catch all for discussions to get into an impossible twist. Whatever makes your proposed case realistic, will involve in REAL reality, a long history building up to the occurrence. What I want to say with that is that a wise man, will prevent himself to get into a situation a smart man can wriggle out of. None of what you describe, with any realistic train of events leading up to it, can go without moment you could have done a lot of wise things, to prevent this from happening.

But let us assume somehow, by unlucky, unwise and grim malevolence, we wind up in this situation. Our detainee, will have such power over us, he may choose not to share his knowledge anyhow. I admit I will consider torture. I have no problem with being a hypocrit. And should I succeed in burning the necessary info out of him, I am not sure I will report myself and try to get myself trialed and sentenced for crimes against humanity - which I still think I have committed at that instance.
But really, if all is such as you describe and the imminent danger is as vast as I imagine it. The detainee has so much power, I will expect him to send me on a wild goose chase. Hence, I might as well try to bribe him in stead of torture. As far as I can see, that may even have a greater chance of success. Or I'd drive him to Tel Aviv and say: OK, you and me. We die together or we live together. We'll be enemies forever, or shall we open a slight window for some remote future we could be friends...[i]

EDIT: I write this a couple of hours later. Upon pondering my piece, I realized I stumbled upon an interesting litmus test while writing the above.
Consider the following. In any given case you would want to grab somebody and pry information out of him by means that are so painful and distressing that you can call it torture or anything you like, but it surely is an exceptional and harmful method for the person on which it is used, consider simultaneously, to try to achieve your goal by a sacrifice on your own part, either by making a precious offering to the potential torture victim, or even surrendering your own safety or life.
IF you are not willing to consider your own sacrifice, what possible right can you have to sacrifice anything of your fellow human.
If you are ready to sacrifice, then we have something to talk about.

Does that sound interesting? Or totally ludicrous?[/i]

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:07:35 GMT

Uh oh. 2 people referencing "absolutism" back at me on this particular debate. :P

Perhaps I'm guilty of this on this topic, but I see torture as an awful thing that I cannot find any reason at all to commit, ever. Is that absolutism? Maybe. :P If you can acknowledge that I find it "evil," is does that make it less absolutist? I suppose one could use that argument for any position on anything though. In that case, I guess I am absolutist on torture.

Doomsday example. Same thing. I would not torture another man. I would not do harmful things to babies. I would not torture a goat, I would not in a boat. On a dam, with a pan or on a man. Nuke I am. (little sleep deprivation there :satisfied: )

I guess to sum up my views on this... I find some things more important than the act of dying. Is life more important than values, honor, integrity? I don't think so, but it is a tough concept to put into terms with nuking city scenarios and doomsday devices, but I believe it still applies in those extreme debate-examples.

RE: Waterboarding

jerm — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:32:22 GMT

[quote]Do the ends always justify the means?[/quote]

Always? No. Sometimes? You betcha!

Nuke, it would seem you're engaging in a bit of... ahem... absolutism here :P. Hey, you started the inconsistency game :laugh:. I will say, I do not know if the old or new testaments or Joseph Smith for that matter would fall favorably or negatively on this. It is a very extreme and perhaps unlikely scenario but it allows you to work backwards to figure out where you stand. I suppose the most extreme example would be some doomsday device which would destroy all life on the planet. Where would you stand then? :w00t:

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:12:31 GMT

[quote]I would be far more able to live with something as reprehensible as "bone crushings" (or worse) more than I could live with myself allowing thousands of souls to perish and I didn't do everything (even torture) in my power to stop it.[/quote]That is the key difference between our opinion in this extreme example.

Do the ends always justify the means? I don't think they do. Jerm, since you're a religious man, is this something that any of the Old Testament prophets would do, or Jesus, or Joseph Smith, etc? Would any of the key religious figures we know of today do this? (Buddha, Krishna, etc?) I don't think so. Does that mean we're more practical today if we do? We care about society more? Are we smarter?

Its an awful scenario with awful consequences either way.

Just my opinion. :P

RE: Waterboarding

jerm — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:48:30 GMT

[quote]-I guess no one noticed that my posts mirrored those of Scipio then. The mirroring had a point to it, but I guess no one noticed that either.
[/quote]

Well the mirroring I suppose isn't too unobvious (not a word I know but it's late) but what the point is... ah, I don't have time for puzzles right now...

[quote]Eh? (i) He is a dearly beloved, sweetheart member of the forum; we all have a poignant love-hate relationship with the little Aryan cutie pie; (ii) His avatar is "Roadkill," i.e., a "rotting carcass; and (iii) he is Norwegian, i.e., a descendant of the Vikings. Nothing untrue, nothing slanderous, nothing offensive, just mild teasing cause he is such a pistol.[/quote]

Heh, makes sense now that you explain it. I don't think he took it that way though...

[quote]In the worst case scenario that has been brought up here a couple times in regards to somebody maybe having information on a nuke going off, he needs to be interrogated, but I still would not stoop to torture. Its an ugly scenario that I hope is never encountered in anything but our silly debates, but in this case, I'd still go for the death before dishonor type mentality. If waterboarding didn't work, but thumb-screws might, you guys would do it in this nuke example? What about bone crushings, and escalating nastiness? Do the ends justify the means in this case? In my mindset, which is just my opinion... I'd rather die than do this to another person. If this meant the incineration of my family, its an awful thought and makes me cringe... but some things are more important than death. Tough to think about.[/quote]

Yes but it's not just your death, your family's, even your neighborhood. It's the incineration of thousands upon thousands of your fellow human beings and perhaps your society itself! Apart from the incinerated who likely died humanely, what about those who survived to go through more horrors than I suspect the "tortured" would have to and they didn't do anything to deserve it? What about the innocent child who is tortured with having his skin fall off from the flash burn and subsequent radiation sickness. I would be far more able to live with something as reprehensible as "bone crushings" (or worse) more than I could live with myself allowing thousands of souls to perish and I didn't do everything (even torture) in my power to stop it. Therefore, the only moral question for me is if it works.

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:27:47 GMT

[quote]So I'm curious, how would you guys go about extracting vital information from a detainee?

Or would you be less disgusted at the consequences of a lower probability of being able to extract any such information?[/quote]I would be less disgusted at the consequences of a lower probability of being able to extract any such information.

In the worst case scenario that has been brought up here a couple times in regards to somebody maybe having information on a nuke going off, he needs to be interrogated, but I still would not stoop to torture. Its an ugly scenario that I hope is never encountered in anything but our silly debates, but in this case, I'd still go for the death before dishonor type mentality. If waterboarding didn't work, but thumb-screws might, you guys would do it in this nuke example? What about bone crushings, and escalating nastiness? Do the ends justify the means in this case? In my mindset, which is just my opinion... I'd rather die than do this to another person. If this meant the incineration of my family, its an awful thought and makes me cringe... but some things are more important than death. Tough to think about.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:16:34 GMT

ADDIT: Wanna address Jerm's question . . .

[quote]That's the only thing I disagree with Scipio's response on... except for this:

you dear sweet rotting carcass of a Viking-desdendant you

Gotta be consistent here. What was the point of this Scipio? I don't think the wink makes it any better... [/quote]

Eh? (i) He is a dearly beloved, sweetheart member of the forum; we all have a poignant love-hate relationship with the little Aryan cutie pie; (ii) His avatar is "Roadkill," i.e., a "rotting carcass; and (iii) he is Norwegian, i.e., a descendant of the Vikings. Nothing untrue, nothing slanderous, nothing offensive, just mild teasing cause he is such a pistol.

RK, I read all the online version of that book. Cleary the authors wish to err on the side of the individual human rights of all interrogation subjects. At every point (primarily chapter 2, and 3) where any reference was made to the issue of whether harsh interrogation techniques work or not, no citations were given, no reference was made to a Chi-Square test comparing the relative outcomes of harsh vs. non-harsh methods, and no other statistical information about the relative merits of rapport-based vs. harsh techniques was offered.

Perhaps such data exists, but it is odd that the authors did not cite the main/most recent sources in the literature right where they make claims that "harsh techniques do not work" as a means to acquire information.

This is not my area (thankfully, cause it seems to be populated primarily with non-pragmatic types) but I did a quick look in the literature. I found that there was a special issue of Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), Vol 7(1), Dec 2007. pp. 29-33.

In which . Costanzo, E. Gerrity and M. B. Lykes wrote a feature article stating that "psychologists should not be involved in interrogations that make use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment." The central message of the feature article was that coercive interrogation is unethical, and does not work, and psychologists should have nothing whatsoever to do with interrogations of terrorists because of the risk of being involved with something unethical and inhumane.

The remainder of that issue of ASAP was devoted to comments by various other psychologists, and social scientists. Here are a few of the comments, with the first being from the editor of that issue.

[quote]Maruyama, Geoffrey, Office for System Academic Administration, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, US, geoff@umn.edu
Peterson, Jamie J., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, US

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), Vol 7(1), Dec 2007. pp. 1-6.

“As noted in some comments, the debate potentially is limited, for information on practical effects of interrogations is classified and not available for inclusion in the debate. At some point in the future, intelligence materials from this era will be declassified. At that time, it will be interesting to see a complete picture of what approaches were used in interrogations, the information they yielded, and how they affected prisoner and interrogator behaviors.” [/quote]

This , combined with the lack of citations in the book that decries harsh interrogation as "useless" and banal, suggests to me that actual observational studies with samples of 10 to 20 (let alone case-control studies that would actually standup in an FDA or Health and Human Services court room) does not exist in any form plentiful enough for the 25+ social scientists who published in this issue of ASAP to make it known to the editor.

A second comment that is pretty clearly dissenting with central claims of the feature article

[quote]Hubbard, Kirk M., Porter Judson,

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), Vol 7(1), Dec 2007. pp. 29-33.

Comments on an article by M. Costanzo, E. Gerrity and M. B. Lykes (see record 2007-19508-002). The original authors argue that "psychologists should not be involved in interrogations that make use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment". The present comment maintains that their statement is ironic, for torture is illegal in the United States. The comment further asserts that their view seems to come from and apply to a world that no longer exists, and that simplifies issues so that they can be as one might like them to be. A second issue is whether or not psychologists should be involved in legal interrogations. Again, the position of the authors is too simplistic. In my view, it is common sense that you would want psychologists involved in the interrogation of known terrorists. As psychologists, rather than decrying illegal use of cruel and inhumane treatment to obtain information, we should work to develop reliable noncoercive ways to get people to tell us about terrorist activity of which they have knowledge and are attempting to withhold. We need to take a proactive stance in saving lives and preventing acts of terror. The authors' article does not appreciably help psychology to move forward, for it limits opportunities for psychologists to gain first-hand knowledge of the nature of the challenges interrogators face, and focuses on current approaches rather than on developing new ones that apply and improve current psychological knowledge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved) [/quote]

So, while you might like to think based on that book you found that it is a closed-and-shut case, there appears to be some dissent even among psychological and social scientists who study human rights, police work, interrogation, and the like.

Last one for now . . .

[quote]Suedfeld, Peter, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Comments on an article by M. Costanzo, E. Gerrity and M. B. Lykes (see record 2007-19508-002). Discusses two major topics: the scientific and moral aspects of organized psychology's position on interrogation and torture, and the conflicted accountability of psychologists to different segments of society. The present comment proposes that we consider these topics as matters that require complex trade-off thinking rather than authoritarian pronouncements demanding conformity and threatening punishment. [NOTE: this is a reference to statements made by Costanzo et al. recommending to the APA that, any involvement by psychologists in interrogation should be grounds for dismissal and censure from the organization]. The authors reject the APA Presidential Task Force's acceptance of psychologists participating in "interrogation activities". They seem to be suggesting that all interrogation is beyond the pale for ethical psychologists. They thus beg the question of just what forms of interrogation may be ethically acceptable and pragmatically necessary under what circumstances. The authors claim that "there is no systematic research on the relationship between torture and false confessions"; of course, neither is there systematic research on the relationship between torture and truthful confessions. And, in fact, psychological knowledge and techniques may be helpful in assessing the truthfulness of the confession and in minimizing the force used to obtain valid information. [/quote]

That last part highlighted in green speaks volumes I think. I doubt that this would have gone to press had the Editor known differently. In getting this issue to press, the Editor would have been privy to the knowledge of all the invidiuals involved.

It is notoriously hard to find "evidence showing that something does not work" in the literature, because there is an intrinsic bias in academic research publishing against publishing of negative results. So, it may be that there is evidence out there showing quite convincingly that, as several of the contributors of the book you cite "rapport-based" methods of interrogation work better and coercive methods do not work at all.

But one last point that makes me suspiscious of such claims when they are not backed up with citations to empirical studies that provide evidence showing that the claims are likely to be true.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Technique]The "Reid Technique"[/url] is touted in the book you cite as "the best," and even "the only humane" way to interrogate subjects. What does this technique amount to? A Wiki page will be the easiest way to pick out the parts that strike me as ironic vis a vis claims that coercion "don't work."

There are three components to the technique "factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation." Factual analysis is essentially doing the preliminary and background work to know all the salient facts. Ideally, the next step is "Interviewing" followed by "Interrogation" which are distinctive in being initially friendly (and deceptively so) then confrontational and accusatory.

[quote]

The word "interview" refers to a non-accusatory question and answer session with a witness, victim or a suspect. In addition to standard investigative questions, structured "behavior provoking" questions are asked to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed. This structured procedure is referred to as a Behavior Analysis Interview or BAI.

Interrogation, on the other hand, is an accusatory process -- accusatory only in the sense that the investigator tells the suspect that there is no doubt as to his guilt. The interrogation is in the form of a monologue presented by the investigator, rather than a question and answer format.[/quote]

The Reid Technique involved psychological manipulation, falsehood, and false sincerity on the part of the interviewer/interrogator.

[quote]The actual demeanor of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. His goal is to make the suspect progressively more and more comfortable with acknowledging his guilt. This is accomplished by asking leading questions, whose answer/acceptance implies guilt on the part of the suspect.[/quote]

In my books, this technique is psychologically coercive

[quote]Many courts have held that the psychological pressure exerted during a Reid interrogation is profound (see Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 573 (U.S. 1961).) Effectively the interrogator, in an unrelenting manner, with the conclusion of guilt resolutely formed in his mind, will grind the suspect down, convince him or her that irrespective of their factual innocence, they are guilty.[/quote]

Against an untrained, unresolved perpetrator, with little preparation for resisting interrogation, this may be an effective--though coercive, deceptive, and ethically questionable--means to acquire a confession, and/or vital information. Against an ideologcial fanatic such as an Al Qaeda suspect, who is willing to kill him/herself for a cause, and who regards the interrogator (a Western military figure) with utter contempt, this method seems to me to be highly questionable in terms of its effectiveness.

[quote]

The Reid technique works to the extent that the suspect aligns himself with the interrogator and accepts his explanations for the suspects motivations and actions.

To be successful the interrogator must:

Establish and maintain control over the source and the interrogation.
Establish and maintain rapport between the interrogator and the source.
Manipulate the suspect's emotions and weaknesses to gain his willing cooperation.

Resistance therefore requires denying the interrogator control of the interrogation, preventing the interrogator from building rapport, and preventing any attempts at emotional manipulation. The suspect must maintain an attitude of detached hostility and skepticism at all times.

The Reid Technique has three main places of weakness. The initial announcement of guilt, the use of leading questions to obtain incremental agreement, and the assumptive close. Each of these can be challenged individually and all of them rely on the assumption that the interrogator is a credible source of information.

Attacking and denying the interrogators credibility serves several purposes. It reduces the interrogators ability to communicate, it disrupts the interrogation process, it creates a healthy state of opposition in the suspect that prevents internalization of the interrogators ideas, and it allows the suspect an outlet for anxiety and fear.

The initial opener can be challenged by denying guilt and forcing the interrogator to explain and justify his beliefs. Making personal questioning attacks on the interrogator's honesty and sincere intentions can quickly create a hostile atmosphere that is not conducive to successful interrogation.

Leading questions can be challenged on the premise that things that did not occur, and are speculative in nature. Consistently pointing out the speculative nature of statements/nature made by the interrogator and refusing to give personal opinions, prevents incremental agreement. Again creating opportunities to express skepticism and hostility to the interrogation process.

The assumptive close can be neutralised by preventing the creation of a "compliant atmosphere" and by pointing out that both forks of the question are invalid.[/quote]

So my initial question still remains unanswered by you guys

[quote]So I'm curious, how would you guys go about extracting vital information from a detainee?

Or would you be less disgusted at the consequences of a lower probability of being able to extract any such information?[/quote]

RE: Waterboarding

Roadkill — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:56:09 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (7/4/2008)[/b][hr]I'd actually like to know what you think and why you think that way on issues like this Roadkill.[/quote]

-I guess no one noticed that my posts mirrored those of Scipio then. The mirroring had a point to it, but I guess no one noticed that either.

-And you asked for something more than "anecdotes" Scipio; [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=enMMwLYsx74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=investigative+interviewing&ei=VZxuSMLgJKaojgHG7umHBg&sig=ACfU3U16SZhpwNt_jZlVWXwdhBc59XE6rg]here it is.[/url]

RE: Waterboarding

jerm — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:16:18 GMT

Rabi, I have a few comments/questions for you:

1- I'm curious why. Is it because of the sensationalism? Is it because you think that waterboarding itself is worse than beating a man to a bloody pulp? Is it because it is used in the guise of usefulness while the others are not? I don't know what you think is worse and why the Hitchens video sickens you.

2- the methods used in conventional interrogation are not typically for the purpose of saving hundreds or thousands of lives. I just see a difference between the two in their pupose. I don't know if this necessarilly makes it okay.

4- I'd also like to see data or some kind of evidence (even if it's anecdotal from previous interrogators). I think whether it's effective or not is the key of the issue for me.

5- I agree that the burden of proof should fall on the shoulders of those advocating the use of torture but if torture is being used, I'm assuming there is some case to be made for it's use and effectiveness, therefore counterevidence may be required to convince.

6- Here is my big disagreement with you Rabi. Let us take an extreme hypothetical situation where it has been discovered that Iran has finally recieved nuclear weapon technology and is intending to use it on Tel Aviv via Hezbollah. Israeli intellegence has captured a high ranking Hezbollah terrorist who is believed to know the location of a nuclear devise which has been smuggled in. Which would be more immoral, using harsh interrogation techniques, even up to what may be considered torture, or not doing everything in your power to stop an attack which could kill thousands upon thousands of people? If in fact torture to get information is effective, the answer for me would be simple. Use whatever techniques necessary to extract the information which will save thousands of lives. I actually think it would be immoral not to! This is why, for me, the answer hinges upon whether or not the use of torture techniques are in fact effective or not.

RE: Waterboarding

jerm — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:49:37 GMT

Alright, first Roadkill, come on. You post a bunch of pictures right after you say, Opinion without knowlege is useless as if they are supposed to... inform us? As usual, you made a drive by posting which should be ignored. That's the only thing I disagree with Scipio's response on... except for this:

[quote]you dear sweet rotting carcass of a Viking-desdendant you [/quote]

Gotta be consistent here. What was the point of this Scipio? I don't think the wink makes it any better...

[quote]-You're actually criticizing me for not addressing in my post the points that you were to make in the future? Not to mention that [b]your "philosophical points" suck[/b]. And that's a nice [b]ad hominen[/b] you've got there, mind if I ignore your [b]retardedness[/b]?[/quote]

Do you realize how childish you sound? You criticise Scipio for criticising you for not responding to points he's made only to follow it up with, "your 'philosophical points' suck." Which is it? Honestly, you [both] sound like my kids when they're fighting. I wonder who will say, "he started it." I'd actually like to know what you think and why you think that way on issues like this Roadkill. Perhaps we could actually all learn something. Your posts rarely offer any meat however and it's kind of annoying.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:56:51 GMT

[quote]

The Orwell quote. There is a subtext here I do not like. Suggesting we can divide humanity into eternal cowards and eternal heroes. Not true and immoral a point to make.

A subtext there you do not like? Gee, join the crowd ... I have met very few who do like it ... unfortunately, in todays world it rings just as true as it did in Orwell's day.[/quote]

Big time QFE.

RE: Waterboarding

cleopatra143 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:41:02 GMT

For the record, name calling, insults and general nastiness is against the rules of this site so when you find yourself without anything nice to say to someone, just stop.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:01:26 GMT

It is a bit like the decline of Republican Rome isn't it?

But still, it begs the question: "1984" has come and is a full-generation long gone.

Are we actually less "free" than in 1948?

RE: Waterboarding

Tosk — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:56:09 GMT

That was exactly my point ... this has been going on by degrees for nearly a hundred years.

The executive just keeps solidifying power by never letting any of the power to slip away, and every little thing that comes up calls for a stronger more pervasive order that is then never recended.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:35:36 GMT

Hey Tosk,

How do any of these executive orders, which outline the _potential_ for the Exec to institute a "police state" differ from the actual American Police State that was instituted during FDR's second term, and arguably continued by degrees for decades after?

[quote]Those newspapers of the nation which most loudly cried dictatorship against me would have been the first to justify the beginnings of dictatorship by somebody else.
Franklin D. Roosevelt [/quote]

[quote]I've said many a time that I think the Un-American Activities Committee in the House of Representatives was the most un-American thing in America!
Harry S. Truman
[/quote]

[quote]McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled.
Joseph R. McCarthy[/quote]

[quote]A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
Dwight D. Eisenhower [/quote]

Nonetheless, we seem to be pretty free and liberal these days ;)

Seems like these guys might wanna digest this quote eh Tosk?

[quote]Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
Franklin D. Roosevelt [/quote]

From here:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/10990.htm

Executive Order 10990 through 11005 ALL signed in by "liberal" Democratic "hero"
[quote]JOHN F. KENNEDY

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 2, 1962.[/quote]

RE: Waterboarding

Tosk — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:13:57 GMT

[quote]The Orwell quote. There is a subtext here I do not like. Suggesting we can divide humanity into eternal cowards and eternal heroes. Not true and immoral a point to make.[/quote]

A subtext there you do not like? Gee, join the crowd ... I have met very few who do like it ... unfortunately, in todays world it rings just as true as it did in Orwell's day.

I do not believe that Orwell was suggesting anything about dividing humanity into anything ... I think he was simply commenting on the way things are.

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency" influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.
The Constitution [u]does not[/u] allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances.
The sheepol should not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law ... and yet ...
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

I hardly expect non Americans to know about this stuff ... heck, it is more than obvious that most Americans don't know about this stuff ... what's more they don't care ... every American should be forced to memorize the Readiness Exercise 1984 ... yes that is the name the government chose ... Papers Please! Step right this way for the train to Dachau ... Tule Lake keep to the right ... Reservations in Oklahoma to the left please.

No country is exempt. The crud we see in North Korea or Africa or that we hear about in our own countries is barely the tip of the ice burg ... Immoral you damn well better believe it ... but do not ever make the mistake of believing it is not true.

Those rough men are all that stand between us and executive order 11004.

Sometimes the end does justify the means ... unfortunately only the winner gets to decide.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:57:31 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (7/4/2008)[/b][hr]I have a further thought I wanted to share and was thinking of how to word it. The analogy of samurais came to mind. Death is preferable to dishonor. Which made me think of those who jump on grenades to save their comrades or any number of similar analogies of people in related circumstances. To some, death is unpleasant and unwanted, but to do something honorable and moral that causes your own unwanted-death is still preferable to dishonor/immorality. To me, this is related to whether we commit evil acts for some *supposed* higher purpose. [/quote]

To me, this sounds like you are basing your argument on a fundamentally pacifistic foundation? I can agree that being highly restrained in causing harm, and always exploring options for causing minimal, if not ZERO harm is the only ethical means of being a human.

But preventing harm by causing harm can, in instances similar to those which I outline in my description of Alpha and Beta above, be the even more ethical, or if you must "moral" thing to do. Would it be better to snipe the hostage taker and prevent him killing the hostage? Or would it be better to run out in the open, distracting him and drawing his fire, likely sacrificing your own life, and allowing a teammate to trip him, disarm him, and save the hostage?

[quote]
If we do something despicable and evil to attempt to prevent something evil and despicable, then we have already sunken to the depths of those whom we are fighting. As I've said on other posts, are we the good guys or not? The ones who seem to argue on 1BC and elsewhere in the world for war, torture, etc of the "bad guys" seem to repeat that we are the good guys and must stop those bad guys. How can this be so if we are encouraging and condoning evil actions by ourselves? Come on... are we the good guys or not? Let's not allow the bad guys' actions to be the moral compass we use for whether or not our own actions are good/evil in comparison. Lets not make it the bad-guys stopping the worse-guys. Wrong is wrong. Right is right. Universally.[/quote]

Locking people up in boxes of concrete and steel for years at a time, depriving them of their basic civil liberties is "despicable and evil" in my opinion. But I would still argue that, from the standpoint of realistic pragmatism, it may well be a necessary evil if we wish to prevent as much harm to the many as possible, and promote as much thriving as possible.

It is impossible to go through life doing ZERO harm. By taking a nuanced, rational, and calculating stance similar to the Alpha and Beta points I've raised (and more-or-less synthesized in a more brief form in the post by Jerm two or so posts above this one) it may be possible however to go through life optimizing the quantum of benefit one promotes relative to the quantum of harm one causes.

In some instances, it may even be possible to cause exponentially more benefit than could have or would have occurred in the case of no action, by causing a relatively small harm.

Indeed, this point is implicitly in the heart of the philosophy of warfare as a last-ditch resort in democratic and just international relations, and it is captured in the Sherman quote about "war being cruel."

To have prosecuted the American Civil War with less cruelty would have caused it to drag on longer, perhaps even causing it to 'resolve' without full surrender by the CSA. This would have (arguably) caused far more long-term harm than the short-term harm caused by getting on with Total War asap.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:25:35 GMT

[quote][b]

2- How can we extract information we need for the safety of our society? I think there are plentiful means which are sanctioned by law and can be challenged in court and that is sufficient, and should be sufficient. [/quote]

Like what?

[quote]
3- The Orwell quote. There is a subtext here I do not like. Suggesting we can divide humanity into eternal cowards and eternal heroes. Not true and immoral a point to make.[/quote]

I don't see how the Orwell quote makes this point at all. To me, the Orwell quote is saying: "You and I "normal everyday people, living normal everyday lives" enjoy lives of peace, compassion, cooperation, reason, and relatively-low risk. No implication whatsoever that we are "cowards" by virtue of living such lives. In such a situation, it is easy for us to forget, overlook, or remain ignorant of the fact, that _somewhere_ (be it cryptic elements "within" our socieites, or not so cryptic elements without our socieities) there are people and groups if not societies which would like to visit harm upon us, our people, and our way of life. Rough men, which I do not take as being equivalent to "heroes" but simply as "rough men," whose existence we may not be eager to acknowledge, let alone applaud, stand ready to, and often engaged in obstructing/preventing those malicious elements from visiting harm upon us and our society. In short, even the most peaceful societies must have mechanisms to address violent threats against them.

[quote]
4- Scipio claims there is no evidence that torture is not effective. I think there is.

[/quote]

NO! I did NOT claim that "there is no evidence!!" *ANGER* WHY is it necessary to misread what I am saying here guys!? Have any of you guys even READ what I wrote, or is this simply a waste of my time??

[quote]
5- Why must I prove torture is ineffective? The norm is not to bring others to harm, agree? If so, then any exception to that norm must be justified and the proponents of torture have a case to make. Not the opponents.[/quote]

First of all, let's ditch this word "torture." I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate for "torture" although you fellas seem intent either subconsciously or consciously in twisting my words so that that is what I am condoning. We must make a distinction between "harsh interrogation" and "torture." The details I outlined above constitute harsh interrogation. "Torture" applies to all the rest: unbound, not constrained by rules, not "shut-offable" through subject compliance, etc. The most basic distinction is: torture is simply a desire to hurt in as diabolical a way as possible. Harsh interrogation is a scientifically and strategically guided system for getting "vital information" in as timely a fashion possible so as to prevent and/or mitigate harm to the innocent.

Now, as to why you must "prove" that harsh interrogation is ineffective: please address my supposition that the two most important questions are Alpha and Beta above.

[quote]
6- The reasoning in terms of what is effective and what not, is entirely irrelevant. Torturing is so blatantly immoral, we should not engage in it. Period.[/quote]

No argument. Torture is wrong. However, what distinguishes torture from harsh interrogation as I outline it above is a matter of debate.

[quote]
7- Even if you think torture is allowed in exceptional cases and with the waterboarding technique and the cases where it is used, we have an example at hand where proportionally to the factors involved (intrusiveness of the technique, the magnitude of the threat, the importance of the hidden information, the imminence of the danger etc etc) it is justified. Even then, the issue must be handled with the greatest care, lest it not deteriorate into Stanford Prison Experiment disasters. As a consequence, the proponents of the exception must take it upon themselves to be very open, very explanative and not engage in sophistry and debating tricks. I think I have seen some of that and we could discuss what is intellectual honesty in this respect. [/quote]

No arguments here. We must be clear about what it is we are condoning. I hope, in the event that I was not clear earlier, that it is becoming more clear. Moreover, I believe I am largely reitering the stance that is being bandied by some of the U.S. SC Justices at this stage.

[quote]
8- I would like to argue that the discussion as it unfolds here is not the true argument. It is a symbolic drama. It is a going through the motions of the democratic ritual, if you will. The real reasons for the use of torture are not those arguments that are being stated. I think the real reason lie in the realm of symbol and collective psychology and I think I could make a case for that. If I am successful at making that case, I think we have uncovered a much deeper injustice that lies within torture.[/quote]

I think here you are not accepting the division I am proposing between torture and HI. Perhaps that is because such a distinction did not occur to you, or perhaps it is because you actively reject such a distinction.

I agree, in most cases in human history where "torture" has been employed, it has been primarily for the purposes you outline: symbol and collective psychology.

Drawing and quartering in the town square for regicide is not meant to actually extract information from the victim based on a careful calculation of the relative costs and benefits which I already outlined in the Alpha-Beta points. It is simply a way to show to the people what happens when you question or rebel against the authority in the society.

I would NEVER condone such barbarity.

Abu Ghraib is similar in being the acting out of the individual perpetrators ill-will and psychosis in an effort to take power and/or vindication by causing harm. I would also NEVER condone such barbarity.

"Waterboarding" does not intrinsically constitute "torture" in the same sense as these two scenarios. Perhaps it does intrinsically constitute torture for some reason, but if you are not proposing it simply as a means of social intimidation or as a means of psychotic acting out, then it does not constitute torture on those grounds.

Have any of you guys actually sought to respond to my opening question in the thread yet?

[quote]So I'm curious, how would you guys go about extracting vital information from a detainee?

Or would you be less disgusted at the consequences of a lower probability of being able to extract any such information?[/quote]

ADDIT:

[quote]Did torture work?
Less coercion yields better data[/quote]

Hi Roadkills, sorry buddy. Two anecdotes by two individuals speaking their opinion does not constitute the sort of empirical proof I was hoping for. Neither does the claim that

[quote]so far, no one from Bush on down has come up with a single documented example of American lives saved thanks to torture. [/quote]

Constitute proof that harsh interrogation does NOT save lives.

I do not doubt that, in "most cases" little to no coercion yields fine data. I'm not arguing for AUTOMATICALLY jumping to the most harsh possible interrogation techniques with each and every subject right off the bat . . . again, I get the distinct impression that you have not even bothered to read what I wrote about Alpha and Beta *sigh*

**double sigh** Okay, let me state it as simply as possible so that perhaps your vision does not cloud over and you skip it: I am arguing that harsh interrogation, not torture, should remain on the table as an OPTION, in those cases where a careful consideration of Alpha and Beta, and a careful execution of the procedures outlined in this post to prevent abuse have been followed. No point in getting harsh with some pawn who probably does not know anything of value. No point getting harsh with some high-value subject whose knowledge probably has little value in terms of saving lives relative to the harm you would have to inflict on him/her in order to extract the information. Absolutely no point in torturing, and absolutely no point in having a flat policy of "any and all detainees of X-source, or Y-identity" will autotmatically be subjected to this or that HI, let alone torture technique as a means to shake them up, and distribute social intimidation into their group.

The rest of your post was mostly garbled by hyperbole, but let me know if there are any other points in there that you'd really like me to address.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:04:13 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (7/4/2008)[/b][hr][quote]"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." -- Abraham Lincoln [/quote]I feel similarly with torture. For those of you who think its justifiable, I wonder if your opinions would change if it was you who this was to be done on, or your wife, daughter, mother, etc.
[/quote]

This point seems to rest on the assumption that harsh interrogation techniques being used or considered by the U.S. as ethical tools in their kit are to be aplied unilaterally, i.e., without consideration of the Alpha and Beta points made above, and without a willingness to reciprocate cooperative/compliant subject behavior with moderated, if not rewarding interrogation technique.

In short: I'm not talkin' about Abu Ghraib, or any other situation in which irrational, idiots, motivated by a cruel drive to inflict harm and 'take' a sense of power. I'm talking about cool-headed, well-orchestrated, highly-organized, systematically controlled through checks and balances (assessments by multiple parties, clearance by higher ranks, and/or civilian legal authorities, etc.)

Anything less is subject to abuse. But to flatly define any act of unpleasant interrogation as "torture" is also absolutist and suffers the risk of erring on the side of the individual detainee and harming the many.

In the sort of controlled, highly-regulated use of unpleasant interrogation about which I am playing Devil's Advocate, a subject always has the option to "sing," meaning: you don't like the experience, start divulging EVERYTHING, as accurately and in as detailed fashion as possible. In the system I'm proposing, THIS action of total compliance and cooperation on the part of the subject MUST cause the interrogators to desist with their harshness, and indeed reward the subject with gentleness, and increased care.

In short: use the harsh techniques only on those who are being uncooperative, if they are cooperative then not only stop the harsh techniques but reward them, maybe even with reduced penalties for whatever infraction it was for which they are being detained.

In this context of highly constrained, highly rule-bound, and highly controlled interrogation--THE ONLY context of harsh interrogation for which I mean to be arguing--the Lincoln slavery quote does not apply. If someone does not like it (being interrogated) they ALWAYS have the option to make it stop by becoming a transparent fountain of information, WHATEVER information they have to offer, and ALL information they have to offer. In the system I envision, if they start providing ALL information, even if it is not exactly what the interrogators were asking about, the harshness stops. If they provide false information, that with a bit of time and effort can be corroborated of falsified, and then back to the harshness.

RE: Waterboarding

Roadkill — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:51:04 GMT

[quote]I know this gets stated a lot; but I've never seen any actual proof that it is true.[/quote]

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/11/BL2007121101053.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns]Did torture work?[/url]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/international/middleeast/07detain.html]Less coercion yields better data[/url]

[quote]Those are some very ugly pictures Roadkill, but then you know quite well that I could go digging up plenty of equally ugly pictures of the consequences of NOT acquiring information from terrorists in a timely fashion.[/quote]

-Not that your argument is in any way valid(Torture does not = All the relevant information you need and so many other lapses in logic.), but what about the consequences of imprisoning the wrong person? Not only have you just destroyed the life of an innocent person, but the actual perpetrator is still out there and now people will let their guard down because the danger is apparently gone.

[quote]If you want me to engage you in a dialogue on the matter, I'd appreciate it if you'd perhaps try to address the philosophical points I just raised in the previous post instead of resorting to the same old worn out knee-jerk liberal bleeding victims imagery . . .[/quote]

-You're actually criticizing me for not addressing in my post the points that you were to make in the future? Not to mention that your "philosophical points" suck. And that's a nice ad hominen you've got there, mind if I ignore your retardedness?

[quote]My annoyance with your resorting to such tactics is increased by the fact that, you have mixed in all manner of contexts with the images you've chosen.[/quote]

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/3/2008)[/b][hr]So I'm curious, how would you guys go about extracting vital information from a detainee?

Or would you be less disgusted at the consequences ofa lower probability of being able to extract any such information?

[/quote]

-I couldn't quite hear you over your hypocrisy.

[quote]The question at hand is: are interrogation methods like waterboarding intrinsically unjust?[/quote]

-No, they're intrinsically useless.
[quote]
Let us not commit the fallacy by association that I know you are so fond of when it comes to all things American you dear sweet rotting carcass of a Viking-desdendant you[/quote]

-Is "When out of substance, resort to mass" your catchphrase?

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:13:58 GMT

Well put, Rabi. I'm in full agreement with you, though I expect a full volley of fire back by others. :P

I have a further thought I wanted to share and was thinking of how to word it. The analogy of samurais came to mind. Death is preferable to dishonor. Which made me think of those who jump on grenades to save their comrades or any number of similar analogies of people in related circumstances. To some, death is unpleasant and unwanted, but to do something honorable and moral that causes your own unwanted-death is still preferable to dishonor/immorality. To me, this is related to whether we commit evil acts for some *supposed* higher purpose.

If we do something despicable and evil to attempt to prevent something evil and despicable, then we have already sunken to the depths of those whom we are fighting. As I've said on other posts, are we the good guys or not? The ones who seem to argue on 1BC and elsewhere in the world for war, torture, etc of the "bad guys" seem to repeat that we are the good guys and must stop those bad guys. How can this be so if we are encouraging and condoning evil actions by ourselves? Come on... are we the good guys or not? Let's not allow the bad guys' actions to be the moral compass we use for whether or not our own actions are good/evil in comparison. Lets not make it the bad-guys stopping the worse-guys. Wrong is wrong. Right is right. Universally.

RE: Waterboarding

RabiAkiva — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:46:49 GMT

I have a truck load of points I would like to make, but I do not wish to embark on writing walls upon walls of text. So I give you a series of points to choose from and I will elaborate.

1- I think the Hitchens video is way more appalling than the pictures Roadkill posted. This may surprise you and we might have an interesting exchange about that.

2- How can we extract information we need for the safety of our society? I think there are plentiful means which are sanctioned by law and can be challenged in court and that is sufficient, and should be sufficient.

3- The Orwell quote. There is a subtext here I do not like. Suggesting we can divide humanity into eternal cowards and eternal heroes. Not true and immoral a point to make.

4- Scipio claims there is no evidence that torture is not effective. I think there is.

5- Why must I prove torture is ineffective? The norm is not to bring others to harm, agree? If so, then any exception to that norm must be justified and the proponents of torture have a case to make. Not the opponents.

6- The reasoning in terms of what is effective and what not, is entirely irrelevant. Torturing is so blatantly immoral, we should not engage in it. Period.

7- Even if you think torture is allowed in exceptional cases and with the waterboarding technique and the cases where it is used, we have an example at hand where proportionally to the factors involved (intrusiveness of the technique, the magnitude of the threat, the importance of the hidden information, the imminence of the danger etc etc) it is justified. Even then, the issue must be handled with the greatest care, lest it not deteriorate into Stanford Prison Experiment disasters. As a consequence, the proponents of the exception must take it upon themselves to be very open, very explanative and not engage in sophistry and debating tricks. I think I have seen some of that and we could discuss what is intellectual honesty in this respect.

8- I would like to argue that the discussion as it unfolds here is not the true argument. It is a symbolic drama. It is a going through the motions of the democratic ritual, if you will. The real reasons for the use of torture are not those arguments that are being stated. I think the real reason lie in the realm of symbol and collective psychology and I think I could make a case for that. If I am successful at making that case, I think we have uncovered a much deeper injustice that lies within torture.

RE: Waterboarding

Nuclearcow — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:47:17 GMT

[quote]"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." -- Abraham Lincoln [/quote]I feel similarly with torture. For those of you who think its justifiable, I wonder if your opinions would change if it was you who this was to be done on, or your wife, daughter, mother, etc.

Have we evolved as a species or not? Are we, as Tosk pointed out, just like the medieval torturers of old? Are we just animals with larger intelligence and more creative and evil ways to harm each other? Are we just as evil as the terrorists?

Let me guess, this must be a bleeding heart liberal opinion and anti-American and all that stuff.

RE: Waterboarding

jerm — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:30:24 GMT

The only question for me is whether it works and is the danger imminent enough and large enough. If it doesn't work, this should not be done to anyone. If it is proven to work, the threat is of a high enough magnitude and it is imminent enough, I have no moral issue with it at all. There is of course the case of the guy who may not know anything so like the death penalty, we should be pretty sure he does. I have heard (though I can't remember the guy I heard it from) that it is pretty ineffective. Even people we know to be terrorists can just make something up so they don't give away secrets. I just don't have enough information though to make a judgement.

RE: Waterboarding

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:35:09 GMT

:ermm:

You'd make a good Code Pink member, RK. They use the same tactics.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:14:47 GMT

[quote]-Opinion without knowledge is about as helpful as tearing down a wall with tweezers. Start here. And here's a few pictures for you:[/quote]

Those are some very ugly pictures Roadkill, but then you know quite well that I could go digging up plenty of equally ugly pictures of the consequences of NOT acquiring information from terrorists in a timely fashion. If you want me to engage you in a dialogue on the matter, I'd appreciate it if you'd perhaps try to address the philosophical points I just raised in the previous post instead of resorting to the same old worn out knee-jerk liberal bleeding victims imagery . . .

My annoyance with your resorting to such tactics is increased by the fact that, you have mixed in all manner of contexts with the images you've chosen. Abu ghraib, a context which I myself would never seek to defend as legitimate or justified use of torture. Abu ghraib was an abuse of authority by the soldiers involved, and a malfeasant breach of duty by those in charge. The question at hand is not "was Abu Ghraib unjust." I suspect we can all agree: it was. The question at hand is: are interrogation methods like waterboarding intrinsically unjust? Let us not commit the fallacy by association that I know you are so fond of when it comes to all things American you dear sweet rotting carcass of a Viking-desdendant you ;)

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:07:04 GMT

I should have included this in my earlier post, but: with respect to the role of this "noble" Vanity Fair "journalist," I am reminded of a famous quote by William Tecumseh Sherman

[quote]If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.[/quote]

Now to respond to your most recent post RA . . .

[quote]the more violent the method of extracting information from people, the more likely you are going to get false information out of them.[/quote]

I know this gets stated a lot; but I've never seen any actual proof that it is true.

There are many ethical questions raised by the use of unpleasant forms of detainment and interrogation as means to make detainees more compliant and cooperative in providing information to interrogators.

In the context of their use by the Western democratic powers, the questions that stick out to me most are: (Alpha) for any given subject, what is the probability that they simply do not know anything useful about whatever it is they are being interrogated about; and (Beta) for any given subject, what is the probability that the potential harm to be prevented through the acquisition of information from the subject by any given method is highly positively asymmetrical or at least equivalent to the harm that can be suffered by the interrogation subject. In an ideal context, both of these parameters could be estimated and assigned P-values. Even in less than ideal contexts the parameters could still be estimated, albeit perhaps with less narrow confidence intervals.

Neither of these two questions (Alpha and Beta) are directly dependent on the specific method, whether it be waterboarding, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, use of psychoactive drugs, chronic exposure to unpleasant environmental conditions (noise, cold, heat, immersion in water) intimidation, forced exhaustion through restraint, mind games of various sorts . . . Rather, the answer to either of these two question/hypotheses, and the estimated P-value for Alpha and Beta in any given context will be dependent on (i) the nature of the information that might be acquired, and how it might help to prevent harm to others; (ii) the nature of the method of interrogation as it relates specifically to the subject (e.g., an agoraphobe could be quite readily made compliant with an interrogator through very different methods than could an arachnophobe); (iii) the nature of the potential harm that the method could cause to the interrogation subjects.

Any given method of interrogation could be quite fearsome to one subject, and rather palatable to another. If a method is likely to cause irreversible harm to a subject, then the probabilities of both (a) and (b) had better be quite high, but especially, the value of (b). Even in situations where existing evidence indicates the value of Alpha is quite high (meaning the interrogation subject is quite likely to actually know about the subject which the interrogators seek information), if the potential harm to be prevented by successfully acquiring that information is negatively asymmetrical--or to err more in favor of the individual detainee, is not at least above some reasonable positively asymmetrical value--then the method would still remain unethical. In cases where both (a) and (b) are quite high, I can see no logical basis on which to argue against virtually any form of interogation, irrespective of how disgusting, inhumane or horrific it might be.

The good of the many ALWAYS outweighs the good of the few. In defense of the people who were oppressed by the Nazis and the Tokugawa Japanese, the allied powers unleashed unthinkable acts of "torture" on not just one, or a handful of people, but on hundreds of thousands of people. Similarly, in each of the historical instances in which the nation of Israel has come under attack by her neighbors, Israel has used whatever means of fierce, disgusting violence she had at hand to coerce those neighbors either to desist or to surrender.

If one is not uncomfortable with such methods of using coercion, then it seems to me to be either myopic or hypocritical to be critical of more focused and precise methods of coercion to preemptively prevent harm to the many.

I am reminded of another quote by William Tecumseh Sherman, the Union General who is famous as one of the USA's "implements" of torture in bringing the Confederacy to submit to the Union's will.

[quote]War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.[/quote]

RE: Waterboarding

Roadkill — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:51:32 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/3/2008)[/b][hr]So I'm curious, how would you guys go about extracting vital information from a detainee?

Or would you be less disgusted at the consequences ofa lower probability of being able to extract any such information?[/quote]

-Opinion without knowledge is about as helpful as tearing down a wall with tweezers. Start [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Incrimination_of_innocent_people]here.[/url] And here's a few pictures for you:

[img]http://www.vialls.com/torture/images/0_american_torture_12.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~kahn/Timor/images/torture/torture4.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.bloggerheads.com/abu_ghraib/iraq_torture_01.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/cambodia-torture.png[/img]
[img]http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/torture-10.jpg[/img]
[img]http://wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/abu_ghraib_new-721906.jpg[/img]
[img]http://static.flickr.com/26/99927654_e12f3a983d.jpg[/img]
[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/04/abu_ghraib_death/img/abu_ghraib_ap.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.trueblueliberal.com/wp-content/photos/abugraib1_gallery.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img.nrk.no/img/570698.jpeg[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/AbuGhraib13.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x64/chayanin/Abu_Ghraib_10.jpg[/img]

RE: Waterboarding

RabiAkiva — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:42:41 GMT

After a long long history in which mankind has shown remarkable creativity in inventing new ways of torture, a very simple lesson has remained overlooked: the more violent the method of extracting information from people, the more likely you are going to get false information out of them. I am not at all convinced of any remarkable increase of knowledge on the part of the interrogator, whereas the sheer immorality of the applied methods hits you in the face with a proportional fortitude.

Do tell me, how many people have the US rounded up and subjected to intense interrogation methods? How many actual terrorists have been found and subjected to justice?
I do not know, but there are writers who gave grueling figures, such as David Cole, Professor of Law at Georgetown University. ([url=http://semcoop.booksense.com/NASApp/store/Search;jsessionid=abcDj774trbYY_XMnFyyr?s=results&initiate=yes&ks=q&qsselect=KQ&title=&author=&qstext=less+safe+less+free&x=0&y=0]book[/url]: Less Safe, Less Free: Why America Is Losing the War on Terror)

In Israel, where the threats are much more immediate and the connection is much more intimate, there seem to be quite an impressive number, allegedly, of people caught and terror attacks prevented. Yet, I find it still extremely uncomfortable, we hold thousands of Palestinians in preemptive arrest.

RE: Waterboarding

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:48:05 GMT

Hey Tosk, I used that quotation in a publication in Transcultural Psychiatry a year or two ago :)

Just encountered this one by FDR as one of the quotes in Call of Duty 2 a couple days ago. Very similar sentiment

Those who have long enjoyed such privleges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945)

RE: Waterboarding

Tosk — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:18:15 GMT

Simply another thing the average person deals with by denial ... then they can be all shocked and outraged when it gets in their face.
Mankind is not one bit more civilized today than he was in the pliers and blowtorch days ... a couple pretend to be, but when it comes right down to it ...

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

~George Orwell~