The Senate torture report

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RitterSport

I disagree, and this will be my last response to what I consider a hijack, but here’s why.

You’re just repeating your earlier point at much greater length. You believe the torture used in this instance was not effective. OK. But you seem to agree that if torture would be effective that it might be morally justified. So that your position rests on your assertion that this particular torture program was not effective.

However, other people here disagree with you. They say that even if it were effective it would never be justified, and that therefore all your assertions about the ineffectiveness of this torture are not germane to the conclusion that it was evil. I’m having a discussion with some of those people.

@BobLibDem

I don’t think that’s his point. He seems to be saying- “In war, you kill innocent people. Why is that worse than torture?” To which the answer is obvious: killing innocents is undesirable but unfortunately unavoidable. Torture is avoidable and therefore must not be practiced.

Scenario: Enemy parks a tank next to a school. You bomb the tank and the shrapnel enters the school and kills three kids and injures 20. Regrettable, to be sure. But any pain these kids endured is not intentional. It is far worse, by several thousand orders of magnitude, to inflict pain for its own sake by torture.

No, you’re misstating my point, and that’s the wrong scenario.

The scenario is: you receive extremely credible information that a gathering of al-Qaeda/ISIS people are in such-and-such location, and/or that such-and-such location is a military installation, so you bomb them. No civilians are inadvertently killed. However, your targets are deliberately killed. You’ve decided that the deliberate killing of these people is justified because of the even greater harm that might come about if they were not killed. There’s also a non-zero chance that your information is wrong, and these people are not terrorists or enemy soldiers, and it’s not a military installation. And even if they are, there’s a non-zero chance that your attack will not lessen the death of any innocent people. And there’s also a non-zero chance that you could have accomplished the same end by other means. But yet, everyone seems to accept that this is justified.

Question is: how is this morally different than if you seized and tortured these very same people, based on the exact same information, and with the same likelihood of accomplishing the exact same end?

[Slash1972]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The scenario is: you receive extremely credible information that a gathering of al-Qaeda/ISIS people are in such-and-such location, and/or that such-and-such location is a military installation, so you bomb them. No civilians are inadvertently killed. However, your targets are deliberately killed. You’ve decided that the deliberate killing of these people is justified because of the even greater harm that might come about if they were not killed. There’s also a non-zero chance that your information is wrong, and these people are not terrorists or enemy soldiers, and it’s not a military installation. And even if they are, there’s a non-zero chance that your attack will not lessen the death of any innocent people. And there’s also a non-zero chance that you could have accomplished the same end by other means. But yet, everyone seems to accept that this is justified.

Question is: how is this morally different than if you seized and tortured these very same people, based on the exact same information, and with the same likelihood of accomplishing the exact same end?

I would assume they are being deliberately killed in order to stop them from killing or “terrorizing” others. Seizing them and torturing them would not be morally equivalent because the torture would be unnecessary to get them to stop “terrorizing”. That’s how it’s different.

[BrainGlutton]

@Morgenstern

I’m asking myself what they would do if they held me prisoner. And I’m getting this very faint answer that sounds like cut my head off. Kind of makes me not give a crap about any of this. Not that it’s right, but it’s not going to keep me up at night either.

Yeah, only, who’s “they”? The guy on the waterboarding table might or might not be one of “they.”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Slash1972

I would assume they are being deliberately killed in order to stop them from killing or “terrorizing” others. Seizing them and torturing them would not be morally equivalent because the torture would be unnecessary to get them to stop “terrorizing”. That’s how it’s different.

Assuming your info is accurate and they’re terrorists, then the torture is necessary to stop the intended killing or terrorizing that they’ve already been involved with from coming to fruition. You’re not punishing them for what they’ve done in the past, but what they’ve already “done” is still out there, and you need to forstall it from happening in the future.

[iiandyiiii]

@Snowboarder_Bo

You know that this is not the view of a majority of Americans, right?

Very likely.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Which is what I said earlier. A lot of people are insisting that there is a distinction to be drawn between between the morality of inflicting death and torture when facing a parallel hypothetical trade-off, but no one can articulate any basis for a distinction.

Don’t understand at all. Inflicting severe pain is very different than inflicting death. The reasons for both, historically, have also been very different.

About the entire basis for the concept of morality? Sure, other thread. About the basis for declaring one act to be immoral while declaring other seemingly-identical acts to be moral, no that belongs right here.

They’re not “seemingly-identical”, at least not to me. Very different, at least to me.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Asserting that something is “very different” is not the same thing as articulating a basis for a distinction.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The scenario is: you receive extremely credible information that a gathering of al-Qaeda/ISIS people are in such-and-such location, and/or that such-and-such location is a military installation, so you bomb them. No civilians are inadvertently killed. However, your targets are deliberately killed. You’ve decided that the deliberate killing of these people is justified because of the even greater harm that might come about if they were not killed. There’s also a non-zero chance that your information is wrong, and these people are not terrorists or enemy soldiers, and it’s not a military installation. And even if they are, there’s a non-zero chance that your attack will not lessen the death of any innocent people. And there’s also a non-zero chance that you could have accomplished the same end by other means. But yet, everyone seems to accept that this is justified.

Question is: how is this morally different than if you seized and tortured these very same people, based on the exact same information, and with the same likelihood of accomplishing the exact same end?

Because torturing them is the deliberate infliction of pain for the purposes (and supposed benefits) of that pain. And that’s wrong always.

The first scenario might be wrong too, depending on the details.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Asserting that something is “very different” is not the same thing as articulating a basis for a distinction.

The basis is that one is pain and one is death (among other things).

The same goes for asserting that they are “seemingly identical”, of course.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK, I guess we’re at an impasse here.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

OK, I guess we’re at an impasse here.

It’s not the first.

[Lemur866]

@Morgenstern

I’m asking myself what they would do if they held me prisoner. And I’m getting this very faint answer that sounds like cut my head off. Kind of makes me not give a crap about any of this. Not that it’s right, but it’s not going to keep me up at night either.

So because drug dealers kill innocent kids, it’s OK for American cops to kill innocent kids?

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Torture is OK as long as we only do it to bad people? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

The contention that waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, sleep deprivation, starvation, dehydration, unrelenting noise, threatening family members, and so on aren’t torture is simply disgusting. It is torture, it’s torture straight out of Stalin’s gulags. LITERALLY copied straight out of Stalin’s gulags, they literally actually read about Stalin’s torture methods and set out to copy them in American-run prisons.

Oh, it was bad when Stalin tortured people, but OK for Americans, because Stalin was bad and we’re good? It was bad for Nazis to torture people, because Nazis are bad, but we tortured people for good? And we know the people we tortured were bad guys because…the torturers told us they were bad.

The myth of the Jack Bauer-style hero torturer is fiction. Torturers who only torture because of a ticking time bomb, who only torture bad people, who don’t enjoy torture, are fictional. Because if torture makes you sick, you can’t keep doing it. So the people who end up running torture chambers are invariably sadists. It always works this way, it is inevitable. And so anyone who ends up in a torture chamber gets tortured, not for information because information is always secondary to the sadist, the purpose of information or confessions extracted from the prisoner is merely to mollify the sadist’s bosses, so the sadist can continue his fun.

Hey, if there’s a terrorist holding the disarm codes to the nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan, and you’re the hero who decides to torture him to defuse the bomb OR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE, then go right the fuck ahead and torture him. And then turn yourself in. Oh, you need to keep your torture secret? How convenient. You reserve the right to torture people, in the name of national security, except you get to decide who to torture, and when and the masses can never know of your sacrifice. All for their own good.

That’s called, you know, fascism.

Maybe there are cases where torture could be justified. But playing the hypothetical torture game misses the fucking point by a fucking mile. It’s not that torture is or is not justified, it’s that government agents should not be given the legal power to torture people. I can imagine shooting a guy who deserves death if there’s no other way this person can be stopped. That doesn’t mean cops get to summarily execute whoever they like. A hero cop can torture a terrorist and get the bomb codes, but he doesn’t get LEGAL AUTHORITY to torture. He can torture, and then face the fucking justice system, and have his actions reviewed by a fucking jury, and if it turns out he tortured innocent people for no reason, then he’s a criminal who needs to spend the rest of his life in jail.

The fact that your boss told you it was OK to torture people–that the torture was approved, and judged legal by a team of torture lawyers? Yeah, how’d that defense work at Nuremberg?

[marshmallow]

The point of torture is to gather intel, improve morale (revenge/domination), or to terrorize the local population into compliance. Saying that the only purpose is to inflict pain is disingenuous. It’s a tool of war. It’s ineffective for the described ends? Maybe. Hundreds of thousands of bullets miss for every one that hits. Is torture critical to military strategy, like bombing? Not really.

@Peremensoe

Except, the reason that this argument is correct is that human beings largely recognize torture as immoral.

The American security apparatus is amoral. It cares about how to further its goals using whatever means is available. If this involves sticking glow sticks up people’s asses, so be it. “But that’s wrong!” isn’t particularly persuasive. Give them a reason to care. Opportunity costs, soft power, something.

The American public doesn’t seem fazed, judging by polls over the years. Most people view “necessary evils” as OK, as long as it’s their side doing it.

I suspect the imperial managerial argument is less effective nowadays. Could anyone argue there’s been much if any blowback from American torture? I recall some European countries were having a brouhaha over this a couple years ago when it was revealed how complicit their govts were in transporting prisoners and/or hosting blacksites for the U.S., but I don’t know if anything actually came of that. Some U.S. officials have to be more selective when it comes to traveling abroad.

Could a military planner point to something and say if only not for torture, we could’ve achieved X and Y?

@Lobohan

Dude, military force is designed to achieve an objective without needless suffering.

Maybe on G.I. Joe.

@BobLibDem

I don’t think that’s his point. He seems to be saying- “In war, you kill innocent people. Why is that worse than torture?” To which the answer is obvious: killing innocents is undesirable but unfortunately unavoidable. Torture is avoidable and therefore must not be practiced.

True. To the extent that bombing is more useful than torture.

Killing innocents is a reasonable war aim (e.g. strategic bombing, terror bombing). War is always a choice, so killing innocents is a choice. To the extent America can choose to not torture is a luxury due to its clear advantage over the enemies it chooses to fight, like taking a handicap. America could also declare that bombing is so immoral it can’t do it anymore in good conscience, relying on ground forces only. I’ll hold my breath on that one.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

I’m not sure what “severe death” is, for one thing. Do you just mean “death”?

Well, just repeating your “severe” part. I mean pain is pain. Death is death. “Severe” is subjective.

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.

Again, I really don’t understand that “necessary part” thing. In war, death is a “necessary part”. But you don’t object to that - because there is a goal that justifies it, presumably. Why not apply the same standard to pain that is a “necessary part”?

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

Again, I really don’t understand that “necessary part” thing. In war, death is a “necessary part”. But you don’t object to that - because there is a goal that justifies it, presumably. Why not apply the same standard to pain that is a “necessary part”?

Pain is different. Pain is never (beyond sci-fi and Jack Bauer silliness) a “necessary part”.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

That’s been done multiple times. Inflicting severe pain when this pain is part or all of the purpose of the action is wrong.

You keep repeating that “when” clause - can you clarify? Do you think that the detainees were tortured just to inflict pain (“all of the purpose”)? Or do you think that causing pain itself was “part of the purpose”? Which means that if the detainees just gave the information freely, they still would have been tortured, because that was “part of the purpose”?

[YogSothoth]

Hey umm, could you put this much nitpicking pendantry on good things and not evil things? Thanks

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

You keep repeating that “when” clause - can you clarify? Do you think that the detainees were tortured just to inflict pain (“all of the purpose”)? Or do you think that causing pain itself was “part of the purpose”? Which means that if the detainees just gave the information freely, they still would have been tortured, because that was “part of the purpose”?

It doesn’t matter if it was part or all of the purpose. It’s wrong either way.

I assume that some of the torture was because the torturers thought it was an effective way to get information, and some was because the torturers enjoyed inflicting pain or dominating someone (and some was probably for both reasons). It’s wrong either way.

[Terr]

@BobLibDem

I don’t think that’s his point. He seems to be saying- “In war, you kill innocent people. Why is that worse than torture?” To which the answer is obvious: killing innocents is undesirable but unfortunately unavoidable. Torture is avoidable and therefore must not be practiced.

Scenario: Enemy parks a tank next to a school. You bomb the tank and the shrapnel enters the school and kills three kids and injures 20. Regrettable, to be sure. But any pain these kids endured is not intentional. It is far worse, by several thousand orders of magnitude, to inflict pain for its own sake by torture.

Well, no. You see, you bomb the tank, and you kill the soldiers inside, sometimes instantly, often quite painfully. But very intentionally. So - morally - how is that better than capturing them, then inflicting pain to get information?

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

Well, no. You see, you bomb the tank, and you kill the soldiers inside, sometimes instantly, often quite painfully. But very intentionally. So - morally - how is that better than capturing them, then inflicting pain to get information?

Sometimes it’s not, but when it is “better”, it’s because inflicting pain to get information is always wrong, while killing is not always wrong.