Cheney & Co. would prefer that the subject of torture was raised as rarely as possible. They were not looking to raise the issue themselves. Now that it’s become high profile anyway, they want their side told as well.
I disagree.
In this case I think it is a mistake to play on their field. Once you start the discussion of how torture can maybe be effective and wouldn’t “X” be a case where torture was an appropriate tactic you have lost the debate. They can endlessly paint pictures that make it look like our side is a bunch of idealistic idiots who have no stomach for the hard realities of life.
I think it is better to say torture is wrong. Period. End of discussion.
Trained interrogators have noted it is a rather bad method of gaining useful intelligence and that better methods exist and have been proven better. That using torture comes with all sorts of downsides such as our image in the world, endangering our own troops further and is against international law…things like the Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory.
Don’t let them control the discussion.
As much as I might wish otherwise, there are many people who will not be swayed by the moral argument, or, more likely, will be swayed by the moral argument but more inclined to sacrifice the moral ground for some presumed “safety”.
Any argument you will not engage you pretty much lose by default. I’m willing to take that risk when it comes to the designated hitter rule. But not for this.
Then point out that their safety is NOT enhanced through the use of torture.
Again, as noted, it is deemed a poor method of obtaining useful information. Additionally it pisses a lot of people off making the people tortured (and perhaps there fellow citizens) more likely to seek vengeance. It also puts our own troops/citizens at more risk of torture as now the other side can say they are only doing what we do. Turnabout is fair play.
If you start down the road of endless, “it can be ok in this instance and maybe that instance or that other instance” the argument is lost. You have already conceded that torture might have some merit when in fact it has none.
None of that will matter to that kind of people.
They’ll argue that if torture wasn’t clearly superior, there wouldn’t be a debate and the US wouldn’t use it in the first place, *Duh *! (in fact, they already do on this very board)
That your image in the world doesn’t matter because they’re not about to let America have its decisions dictated by filthy foreigners and what those pansies think about you - they’re not the one in the crosshairs ! They should be damn happy that America takes it upon itself to do what is necessary to protect them from an Evil they’ll never know !
As for international treaties, same deal and come on, this is realpolitik - it’s not the place for keeping one’s word. You do what’s expedient at the time, and what was back then isn’t anymore.
And as for your own troops, they don’t let themselves get captured by filthy ragheads in the first place, because they’re superior warriors and no man is left behind. Besides you’d mount daring rescue operations using superior pewpew and the “bad guys” wouldn’t stand a chance anyway.
The kind of people who go for denial that torture is torture, and anyway it’s justified in some cases are the “Why do you hate America ?” type. They’ve replaced reflexion with patriotism, and then patriotism with flag worship. “My country, right or wrong !” ring any bells ? Of course, these ignorant jerkwads don’t know the followup to *that *particular quote…
Then I’d say walk away from the conversation. Someone dead set on their opinion and refusing any and all evidence the the contrary is a waste of time. Changing the debate as elucidator mentioned will not improve things and only embolden them more in their faulty beliefs.
I think enough people will be persuaded otherwise though. The diehard torture apologists can go pound sand.
ISTM that you are contradicting yourself here. This is exactly what you are opposed to doing, in this discussion. (Your position until now is that you don’t want to discuss whether torture is effective or not, which is exactly what you advocate doing in this quote.)
Merely noting it is a non-starter. Someone wants to say torture is needed point out it isn’t because it does not achieve its goals as well as other, proven means.
Seems to me that should be the end of the conversation right there.
So IOW, whereas before you said that “Torture is bad and needs no evidence of effectiveness or lack of to make that determination”, and that you did not even want to “start the discussion” of whether it might be effective, you now say that you are willing to start the discussion, but if someone disagrees with your assertion that it is ineffective, you will ignore him thereafter.
If you ask me, that is not a technique that will win anyone over at all. You’re better off either discussing it fully or ignoring it altogether. JMHO.
True. Otherwise, how do you explain waterboarding someone 83 times in a month, or even 183 times in a month? cite
This wasn’t to get information. It was because they were “bad guys”. You don’t get higher quality or more information out of someone the 156th time you waterboard them.
Did somebody reveal this yet, and I missed it because of the Earth Day orgy, but did anything in particular happen to make them stop? Were they ordered to stop? Did the interrogations of both victims stop at the same time?
What? The Earth Day orgy, yes, of course…you didn’t get your invitation? Oh, my, what a pity. Perhaps next year you might be a bit more devoted…
As Bricker has pointed out, the legal question is irrelevant to whether or not torture is good policy (except insofar as there are real-world consequences to the US being seen as legally endorsing conduct that most of the world regards as illegal). So to that extent your point is well-taken.
But when most people talk about torture vs. non-torture, I don’t think they’re talking about whether the conduct fits a particular legal definition. In large part, they’re really talking about is how bad the conduct is. I agree that calling it torture or not doesn’t affect what actually happened–how much suffering it caused, it’s long-term effects, etc.–but it is a useful heuristic for those things. So the debate over terminology is sort of a proxy debate for how bad the conduct is.
I understand what you’re saying. And I agree that as a general principle, the government shouldn’t censor information based on the government’s judgment about what is true and what is false. But there is a huge difference between the government saying a private citizen may not offer certain information and the government itself deciding not to offer it. I’m merely saying that the government ought not give information to the American people that the President has reason to believe is falsified. That’s not censorship.
If you believe torture, if effective, would be good policy, then you oppose Obama’s position. You don’t need any more information to know that you and Obama don’t agree about torture. I concede your point that some people would feel more intensely about this disagreement if they had more evidence of torture’s effectiveness, but I think that we must view the value of the information in the narrow context. On the whole, people don’t need the information to make a decision about whether they agree or not with Obama’s policy.
Well, for one, they were probably legally obligated to do so. Unless they could come up with a national security reason not to–and there was none, at least not in the traditional sense, since the information was all public–they had to release the memos under FOIA. For another, now we don’t have to rely on Obama’s word that the US doesn’t torture because his claim to have ended the program is bolstered by his release of the information. After Bush lied about that dozens of times, the world would be right to be skeptical about Obama. It also reveals important information for the purpose of holding officials like Bybee accountable.
I get that there’s a serious downside in revealing that torture was ordered by the last President. But I think that, for the most part, that cat was out of the bag.
In order for the claims to be credible at all, they would have to be specific and verifiable. If the memo simply says, “we got useful information,” then we’ve added nothing to our knowledge since the CIA has already said that.
You make and Fotheringay-Phipps make fair points on the fourth argument. I think I was wrong and I retract that argument.
But I do maintain that it is very difficult to have a well-supported debate about the costs and benefits of torture because there’s just so much we don’t know, even if such memos are released. That is an unfortunate fact, but I also think that a majority of Americans believe that torture, even if effective in getting information, should not be used. So the point may be politically moot.
Jack Bauer could do it on the first try. We musta had a buncha pansies doing it.
Ok…try it this way.
On a moral basis the argument for torture falls flat on its face. It is a non-starter and should stop there. That should be enough.
Of course people who support its use will fall back to a realist’s argument. “Morals are all well and good till the bad guys are bashing in your door because your vaunted principles stopped you from doing what was necessary to protect you,” they might say.
So the response is that torture fails to achieve its goals of protection that are claimed. Experts in the field note that it is a very poor means of gaining useful information and better, non-torture methods exist. Use of torture also likely puts you at MORE risk because the people tortured and their brethren are likely to be really cheesed off and want vengeance thus spurring their efforts to come bash in your door and get you. It also diminishes our standing in the world with all kinds of knock on effects from that.
In short, it fails on the moral count and fails on the pragmatic count.
End of discussion.
This is, in my opinion, undeniably true. I get somewhat annoyed when torture opponents fall back on the “it doesn’t work” argument because while likely true it is irrelevant to the larger question.
Shepard Smith (of all people…) said it best - “I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps… We do not fucking torture”.
I know this isn’t the pit so I’ll refrain from expounding but it truly dismays me that we have honest patriotic Americans debating whether waterboarding and stress positions and forced hyporthermia are torture. Or the guy in that clip saying “That’s a matter of opinion… You’ve got two schools of thought… I’m not saying if torture is right or wrong…”. My country is better than this…
Unfortunately ‘it doesn’t matter if it works, we don’t torture’ just leads to you being accused of coddling terrorists or other enemies of the state.
The only way to get through to people who think torture is a good idea is to point out it doesn’t work - take it out of a moral debate where they can frame you as the bad guy, because you ‘support the villain’, make it practical.
But how do we do that formally? Cheney talks as if he still holds some position of power. I’m beginning to get the sensation that if someone asked Cheney to just step away from the government buildings, his response might be: “I would prefer not to.”
Although Cheney’s the least likely person to copy documents…
But if you argue that it doesn’t work, they say that it does. And if you ask for evidence they say that it’s secret.
Well, in this case, he made a request via the National Archives.