# The Senate torture report **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773 "2014-12-09T17:20:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/61 "2014-12-09T20:04:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Military action is meant to kill the enemy. Sometimes that can include civilians as well as military and certainly the attacks can inflict great pain but that is not the goal or even desirable. In the end you want the enemy to capitulate and the attacks end. > > In the case of torture the explicit purpose is to inflict pain and often great care is taken to not let the person being tortured die or pass out. Drawing out the agony is intentional. The purpose being to coerce bogus confessions and/or cow the populace. There is really no end to it. If I understand you correctly, you’re drawing a line between death and pain, in which inflicting death (in this circumstance) is OK, but inflicting pain is not. I find this line to be arbitrary, and unconvincing. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Dude, military force is designed to achieve an objective without needless suffering. > Torture is an alternate system of interrogation that has numerous false positives and is less effective than traditional methods. Its use is the same thing as willfully dropping napalm on a wedding. Pointless savagery. No, torture is the same. In this hypothetical discussion, the point of the torture is to achieve an objective without needless suffering. Possibly you’re unfamiliar with the discussion here, which you may profit from rereading. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From a moral standpoint? Deliberately inflicting severe pain because of some benefit one thinks the pain will produce (pleasure for the inflicter, or information from the inflicted, for example), is always wrong. It’s unclear what distinction you’re making here, but if it’s between death and suffering then my remarks from above apply. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/62 "2014-12-09T20:06:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From a moral standpoint? Deliberately inflicting severe pain because of some benefit one thinks the pain will produce (pleasure for the inflicter, or information from the inflicted, for example), is always wrong. But deliberately inflicting severe death because of some (usually political) benefit one thinks it will produce is ok. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/63 "2014-12-09T20:06:48Z")
> [@andros](#): > > This. The notion that psychological manipulation, sensory- and sleep deprivation, and constant noise cannot be considered torture simply because they do not involve thumbscrews or pliers is terribly naive. I think you’re being overly charitable. If North Korea had done this to US civilians, the same people calling this “enhanced interrogation” would be advocating that we go to war with North Korea over the torture. It’s not naiveté. It’s jingoism and cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/64 "2014-12-09T20:07:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > From your post above: > > “Abu Zubaydah was subjected to more than a month of “enhanced interrogation” (including loud, constant music, terrible food, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation), at the end of which he was described by CIA interrogators as “clearly a broken man” and “on the verge of a complete breakdown”.” > > There was no “severe pain” involved. Was Abu Zubaydah tortured? I think you would agree that such treatment did result in severe pain, had you shared it. Unrelieved physical discomfort, plus mental torment, eventually becomes indistinguishable from simple physical pain. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/65 "2014-12-09T20:08:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > All the bans you note: poison gas, landmines, biological weaponry - are not because of “unnecessary suffering”. The reason for such bans are because such methods are not discriminating. Torture, on the other hand, is about as pinpoint as it gets. I’m sure **RickJay** will weigh in, but just let me say that the unnecessary suffering of non-combatants arises from the indiscriminate nature of the banned weapons that were mentioned. They go usually go hand-in-hand. At the risk of sounding callous, the necessary suffering is intended for the ones actually doing the fighting. That’s the whole idea. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/66 "2014-12-09T20:09:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s unclear what distinction you’re making here, but if it’s between death and suffering then my remarks from above apply. The distinction is deliberately inflicting severe pain for some supposed benefit that pain produces. That’s very different, whether or not you think it’s arbitrary. > [@Terr](#): > > But deliberately inflicting severe death because of some (usually political) benefit one thinks it will produce is ok. In some cases it is. Very often it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/67 "2014-12-09T20:10:30Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You can’t argue against peverse machinations of the security state using moral arguments. People care whether something works or doesn’t, or whether something has propaganda value and hurts your image. The most effective anti-torture argument is similar to that of mass bombing. Not that it wouldn’t work, but that it negatively affects American soft power and creates a situation where allies and satellite states are less likely to do what we say. It’s managerial in scope, not moral. Except, the _reason_ that this argument is correct is that human beings largely recognize torture as immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/68 "2014-12-09T20:10:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The distinction is deliberately inflicting severe pain for some supposed benefit that pain produces. That’s very different. > > In some cases it is. Very often it’s not. Ok, so just to make sure I understand correctly: according to iiandyiiii - deliberately inflicting severe pain is not ok, ever. Deliberately inflicting severe death is, sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/69 "2014-12-09T20:13:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Military action is meant to kill the enemy. Sometimes that can include civilians as well as military and certainly the attacks can inflict great pain but that is not the goal or even desirable. But if there were no pain or suffering, there would be no reason for the enemy to surrender. The infliction of pain is a primary aim of war. If you believe in war, though, you should also believe in only inflicting necessary pain. Edit: Obviously, the infliction of pain as the means _and_ the ends is reprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/70 "2014-12-09T20:15:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ok, so just to make sure I understand correctly: according to iiandyiiii - deliberately inflicting severe pain is not ok, ever. Deliberately inflicting severe death is, sometimes. No. Deliberately inflicting severe pain because of some benefit one believes that this severe pain specifically causes (i.e. torture) is always wrong. Deliberately killing someone is sometimes okay. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/71 "2014-12-09T20:17:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If I understand you correctly, you’re drawing a line between death and pain, in which inflicting death (in this circumstance) is OK, but inflicting pain is not. Inflicting needless and willful death isn’t okay. We don’t let our soldiers shoot up an Iraqi Trader Joes just because they feel like it. > [@](#): > > I find this line to be arbitrary, and unconvincing. > No, torture is the same. An assertion isn’t an argument. Bombing a group of men planting an IED and torturing a survivor of that bombing for information aren’t the same thing. In the first we use force to stop an actual threat. If someone innocent is killed, it is part of war. Which is why, I’m generally not a fan of war. Pulling a survivor and jamming tubes up his ass, performing mock executions, and denying him sleep for weeks, isn’t stopping a threat. It’s punishing him. > [@](#): > > In this hypothetical discussion, the point of the torture is to achieve an objective without needless suffering. Torture is less effective than standard interrogation, so it is by definition needless. If it were actually as good or better than interrogation it would still be morally wrong, just like mustard gas is morally wrong. > [@](#): > > Possibly you’re unfamiliar with the discussion here, which you may profit from rereading.It’s unclear what distinction you’re making here, but if it’s between death and suffering then my remarks from above apply. Death isn’t dealt for shits and giggles. Torture is done for no reason but to satisfy the base desires of those who order it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/72 "2014-12-09T20:22:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No. Deliberately inflicting severe pain because of some benefit one believes that this severe pain specifically causes (i.e. torture) is always wrong. Deliberately killing someone is sometimes okay. I don’t understand. Why did you say “No”? What is the difference between your statement and: “Deliberately inflicting severe pain is not ok, ever. Deliberately inflicting severe death is, sometimes.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/73 "2014-12-09T20:22:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ok, so just to make sure I understand correctly: according to iiandyiiii - deliberately inflicting severe pain is not ok, ever. Deliberately inflicting severe death is, sometimes. You’re in a war. The enemy bombs your village because there are militants firing rockets from a building adjacent to yours, and your roof collapses, as a result your daughter dies. The enemy comes to your door and grabs your daughter. They torture her for weeks. Sometimes sexually assaulting or humiliating her. Morally equal? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/74 "2014-12-09T20:25:02Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You’re in a war. > > The enemy bombs your village because there are militants firing rockets from a building adjacent to yours, and your roof collapses, as a result your daughter dies. > > The enemy comes do your door and grabs your daughter. They torture her for weeks. Sometimes sexually assaulting or humiliating her. > > Morally equal? Of course not. For one, the first is unintentional, the second is. Got any other examples? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/75 "2014-12-09T20:25:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I don’t understand. Why did you say “No”? What is the difference between your statement and: > > “Deliberately inflicting severe pain is not ok, ever. Deliberately inflicting severe death is, sometimes.” Because sometimes it’s okay to shoot someone, even though that might cause severe pain. If severe pain is a side effect of some other direct acceptable cause (self-defense, for example), and the physical pain and suffering is not part of the goal in any way at all (you’re not shooting them in the stomach because you want them to suffer), then taking an action that happens to cause severe pain as an undesired side effect might not be wrong. But taking an action that causes severe pain when the severe pain itself is part or all of the reason for the action, due to some perceived benefit from the severe pain (such as the pleasure for a sadistic inflicter, or to get information that one deems the pain will extract), is always wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/76 "2014-12-09T20:28:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No. Deliberately inflicting severe pain because of some benefit one believes that this severe pain specifically causes (i.e. torture) is always wrong. Deliberately killing someone is sometimes okay. I don’t see that you’re saying anything different than what Terr said. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Inflicting needless and willful death isn’t okay. We don’t let our soldiers shoot up an Iraqi Trader Joes just because they feel like it. > > An assertion isn’t an argument. Bombing a group of men planting an IED and torturing a survivor of that bombing for information aren’t the same thing. In the first we use force to stop an actual threat. If someone innocent is killed, it is part of war. Which is why, I’m generally not a fan of war. > > Pulling a survivor and jamming tubes up his ass, performing mock executions, and denying him sleep for weeks, isn’t stopping a threat. It’s punishing him. > > Torture is less effective than standard interrogation, so it is by definition needless. If it were actually as good or better than interrogation it would still be morally wrong, just like mustard gas is morally wrong. > > Death isn’t dealt for shits and giggles. Torture is done for no reason but to satisfy the base desires of those who order it. You’re all over the place here. No one is defending torture “because they feel like it”, or “to satisfy the base desires of those who order it”. The question is if in theory torture would likely be effective at preventing some even greater horror, would it be OK in that circumstance, and if not, then how do we distinguish between that and acts of war which people are OK with in those circumstances. If you simply disagree that such circumstances ever exist in the case of torture, that’s another story. But I’m specifically addressing someone who said he would be opposed in that hypothetical circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/77 "2014-12-09T20:28:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Because sometimes it’s okay to shoot someone, even though that might cause severe pain. If severe pain is a side effect of some other direct acceptable cause (self-defense), and the physical pain and suffering is not part of the goal in any way at all (you’re not shooting them in the stomach because you want them to suffer), then taking an action that happens to cause severe pain as an undesired side effect is not wrong. Exactly. So - deliberate causing of severe pain is not ok. But, according to you, deliberate causing of severe death is, sometimes. Did that misrepresent your view? > [@](#): > > But taking an action that causes severe pain when the severe pain itself is part or all of the reason for the action, due to some perceived benefit from the severe pain (such as the pleasure for a sadistic inflicter, or to get information that one deems the pain will extract), is always wrong. But taking an action that causes severe death when the severe death itself is part or all of the reason for the action, due to some perceived benefit from the severe death (such as fewer soldiers on the other side, for example) is ok. Right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/78 "2014-12-09T20:32:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Exactly. So - deliberate causing of severe pain is not ok. But, according to you, deliberate causing of severe death is, sometimes. Did that misrepresent your view? I’m not sure what “severe death” is, for one thing. Do you just mean “death”? Further, it’s the first use of the word “deliberate” that I’m not sure about. Sometimes it can be okay to take an action that you know will cause severe pain – such as shooting someone who is attacking you. But never if that severe pain is a necessary part or whole reason for why you take that action. > [@](#): > > But taking an action that causes severe death when the severe death itself is part or all of the reason for the action, due to some perceived benefit from the severe death (such as fewer soldiers on the other side, for example) is ok. Right? Again, do you just mean “death”? If so, then yes, there are circumstances in which it’s okay to cause death. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/79 "2014-12-09T20:32:53Z")
What’s with the repetition of “severe death”? You can just say, “death.” Yes, sometimes killing enemies in the field can be morally justifiable, whereas torturing a helpless captive cannot. Is this really a strange concept? ETA: Heh. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/80 "2014-12-09T20:34:21Z")
On the “rectal feeding”: “CIA records indicate that one of the detainees, Mustafa al-Hawsasi, was later diagnosed with chronic hemorrhoids, an anal fissure, and symptomatic rectal prolapse.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773.md?page=5)