Torture doesn't work

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@GIGObuster

Not necessary as what it took place in real life was torture, not SERE. Again what an instructor of NAVY seals recounts:

Opinions and anecdotes are poor substitutes for facts.

And you are missing the point of what tomndeb is complaining, It is not only the insulting terms but that dishonest argument that attempt to use that 100% training result and ignore that it is not SERE what was used in the field. It was an alleged and an opinion of a CIA guy that advised in the end to not use the revere of SERE in the field.

I don’t think I ever said that SERE is just like the application of torture in the field. I say (several times) that torture is no a silver bullet and hat SERE training is conducted under very controlled circumstances. You say this several times and I have corrected you several times on this count. Its one thing if I try to correct you on the facts, its an entirely different thing when I correct you on WTF I am saying and you continue to say that I am saying something else.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Is the “straw man” the descriptions of the Navy SEALs as “pussy ass” or the suggestion that Kobal2 said they were “going to half ass this part of SERE training because, well, why the fuck not?” Because the latter seems a pretty apt description of what he said AFAICT.

That’s what I thought he meant, unless he meant that sarcasm was “bordering on dishonest”

I’m not sure what the moderator instruction was at this point.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Once again, no one is saying that torture cannot be misused. But that does not mean that it doesn’t work.

As pointed many times you are overstating the levels of how much it does work. Once again, using the statement that “torture works” is bullshit as it is farther away from the truth, “torture does not work” is much closer to the truth and needs less conditionals to explain the exceptions that prove the rule. (and once again you are not even wrong about the SERE talking point you are using)

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Despite the domain name, politifact is not actually fact. Its their determination of whether or not they believe an assertion.

And I rather accept the experts they looked at, the experts they consulted and the experience of the SERE trainers. Rather than the anecdotes and out of context “evidence” that you rely on.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@GIGObuster

(and once again you are not even wrong about the SERE talking point you are using)

WTF does that mean?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@GIGObuster

And I rather accept the experts they looked at, the experts they consulted and the experience of the SERE trainers. Rather than the anecdotes and out of context “evidence” that you rely on.

Anecdotes are usually irrelevant. Especially irrelevant when used to prove a categorical statement. The exception is when you only have to prove something occurs occasionally to prove your point. So my anecdotes count and yours don’t.

I have facts, you have opinions and anecdotes. I don’t know how much more I can say about the weakness of your attempts to dismiss the results of SERE training without getting a moderator warning.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

WTF does that mean?

Of course, not a surprise that you are not aware of:

Not even wrong

Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly “correct” conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

Indeed, the point stands, you were not using SERE all this time, but the reverse of it. As in torture that was designed by the communists and others with the intension to break the subjects for propaganda purposes. Gathering intelligence was not the aim, SERE was there to help seals know what they will face, and the SERE trainer already reported how the NAVY men have gone around the torturers in the past, making a mockery of their propaganda aims that they were looking that torture would give them.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Anecdotes are usually irrelevant. Especially irrelevant when used to prove a categorical statement.

Politifact pointed in their article the evidence, very little good evidence was gained, very few out out the almost 5000 accused of terrorism were convicted with the evidence gained. If torture was as effective as is alleged the rate of conviction would be higher as torture would had pointed to other evidence besides the tortured obtained one that would had been useful.

[tomndebb]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Is the “straw man” the descriptions of the Navy SEALs as “pussy ass” or the suggestion that Kobal2 said they were “going to half ass this part of SERE training because, well, why the fuck not?” Because the latter seems a pretty apt description of what he said AFAICT.

The prohibition is on the repeated reference to pussy SEALs, attacking an argument that has not been made, using a sarcastic comment for no purpose other than trolling the thread.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@GIGObuster

Of course, not a surprise that you are not aware of:

Not even wrong - RationalWiki
Indeed, the point stands, you were not using SERE all this time, but the reverse of it. As in torture that was designed by the communists and others with the intension to break the subjects for propaganda purposes. Gathering intelligence was not the aim, SERE was there to help seals know what they will face, and the SERE trainer already reported how the NAVY men have gone around the torturers in the past, making a mockery of their propaganda aims that they were looking that torture would give them.

Its a good thing I we can’t make personal comments here. :rolleyes:

You are either being intentionally obtuse or just can’t grok why the results of SERE training is relevant. It is irrelevant that the soviets were using torture to gain false confession and shit like that. That says NOTHING about torture’s ability to gain useful information. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether SERE training is relevant data or “not even wrong”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tomndebb

The prohibition is on the repeated reference to pussy SEALs, attacking an argument that has not been made, using a sarcastic comment for no purpose other than trolling the thread.

Pardon my French but that’s not fucking clear from your mod note. It also serves a useful purpose in a debate where your side of the argument is basically saying that SERE training doesn’t really count (at least in part) because those Navy SEALS are half assing it.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its a good thing I we can’t make personal comments here. :rolleyes:

You are either being intentionally obtuse or just can’t grok why the results of SERE training is relevant.

As obtuse as the colonel and the other SERE trainers. I know on what side I want to be.

@Damuri_Ajashi

It is irrelevant that the soviets were using torture to gain false confession and shit like that. That says NOTHING about torture’s ability to gain useful information. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether SERE training is relevant data or “not even wrong”

The readers already looked at the testimony from people that know better than you.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy/interviews/malcolm_nance.html

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy/interviews/steven_kleinman.html

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy/interviews/stuart_couch.html

BTW it is very relevant that the reverse of SERE is indeed torture used for propaganda purpouses. In the real world it also helped the propaganda of the Bush the lesser administration.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Pardon my French but that’s not fucking clear from your mod note. It also serves a useful purpose in a debate where your side of the argument is basically saying that SERE training doesn’t really count (at least in part) because those Navy SEALS are half assing it.

How do I appeal moderator warnings? I think this one is uncalled for both because I had not read the moderator note before I made the offending post and because the moderation is unclear. And if it were clear it seems to me that my sarcasm is hardly dishonest and serves the purpose I state in my quoted post.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Pardon my French but that’s not fucking clear from your mod note. It also serves a useful purpose in a debate where your side of the argument is basically saying that SERE training doesn’t really count (at least in part) because those Navy SEALS are half assing it.

It was clear to both Tom and I. It also seems to have been clear to others in this thread.

Now control yourself or you will not enjoy the consequences.

[tomndebb]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You are picking and choosing which opinions you believe. Because there are plenty of people who were involved with the enhanced interrogation program who say it worked. In fact the Director of the CIA (appointed by Clinton) seems to think that it works. So there is no consensus among experts that torture does or doesn’t work unless you only rely on the experts that say torture doesn’t work.

There is consensus among professional interrogators that it leads to bad intel.

The CIA Director is a political appointee defending his troops against the accusations that the torture was not needed and did not do the job. Despite lots of vague claims by the pro-torture side that it “worked,” (by whatever odd definition they use), every instance in which it was claimed to have been successful was either a lie or the torture only repeated information gathered from other sources. Even if, in a few cases, the torture resulted in accurate information, that information was already available from non-torture sources and there were too many cases when the false information resulting from torture led to bad decisions.

Claiming that one can periodically get a person to give up real information under torture simply does not justify its use when it so often produces bad information.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Jonathan_Chance

It was clear to both Tom and I. It also seems to have been clear to others in this thread.

Now control yourself or you will not enjoy the consequences.

The only other poster that posted anything about that warning seemed to think it was confusing.

[tomndebb]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Wait. What FACTS have you presented? You have presented opinions and anecdotes. That’s about it.

What useful intel has been procured by torture? Continued references to training exercises are not facts in the way that supports your position.

It is a fact that torture provided bad intel.

It is not a fact that torture provided anything useful.

Your claim of “facts vs opinion” is simply an appeal to your opinion that training exercises have provided evidence that they really do not provide.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Jonathan_Chance

It was clear to both Tom and I. It also seems to have been clear to others in this thread.

Not only was it unclear to me then, but it remains unclear to me now, even after Tom’s subsequent post. (Is referring to SEALs as “pussy ass” itself what he’s calling “attacking an argument that has not been made, using a sarcastic comment for no purpose other than trolling the thread”, or were the latter in reference to something else? And if so, what?)

@tomndebb

Despite lots of vague claims by the pro-torture side that it “worked,” (by whatever odd definition they use), every instance in which it was claimed to have been successful was either a lie or the torture only repeated information gathered from other sources. Even if, in a few cases, the torture resulted in accurate information, that information was already available from non-torture sources and there were too many cases when the false information resulting from torture led to bad decisions.

Do you have a legitimate source for these claims?

I’ve seen a lot of claims that are superficially similar but fundamentally less reaching. Specifically, that anything useful obtained by torture could have been obtained without it. Which I’ve never taken very seriously, since it seems like a highly speculative claim, and one generally advanced by people who oppose torture on other grounds. What you’re claiming here is that anything useful obtained by torture actually was “readily available from non-torture sources”, which is a much more far reaching claim. So I’m curious as to your source for this claim.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tomndebb

There is consensus among professional interrogators that it leads to bad intel.

Like the ones in the CIA? Or the ones from French Algeria?

The CIA Director is a political appointee defending his troops against the accusations that the torture was not needed and did not do the job. Despite lots of vague claims by the pro-torture side that it “worked,” (by whatever odd definition they use), every instance in which it was claimed to have been successful was either a lie or the torture only repeated information gathered from other sources. Even if, in a few cases, the torture resulted in accurate information, that information was already available from non-torture sources and there were too many cases when the false information resulting from torture led to bad decisions.

Claiming that one can periodically get a person to give up real information under torture simply does not justify its use when it so often produces bad information.

So your experts are REAL experts and my experts are political appointees?

French Algeria. Torture used to find location of resistance members. Algerian resistance members found.

Russian castration and dismemberment of Hezbollah Family members. Worked to secure the release of Russian prisoners.

Torture is not a silver bullet that works in all circumstances but in the situations where it is appropriate, it can be useful.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Here’s an Op-Ed in the NYT from an opponent of torture, arguing that the Senate Report on the CIA’s torture program was misleading.

But the principal lesson drawn by countless commentators in the initial news cycle — that torture does not work — was reached before nearly anyone read the full report and responses by the C.I.A. and the Republican members of the committee. The report and responses amount to 828 pages. I’ve now had a chance to read the documents in full. And I suspect the C.I.A. was treated unfairly.

The full story is more complicated, and ultimately much more disturbing, than the initial responses — mine included — suggested.

The area of dispute concerns the report’s “headlines” — namely, that the C.I.A.’s tactics did not work, and that the agency repeatedly lied about that. The report focuses on 20 prominent instances in which the C.I.A. claimed that information obtained from detainees they subjected to coercive tactics helped identify high-level terrorists and disrupt terrorist plots. The committee concluded that every such claim was a misrepresentation.

When one places the C.I.A.’s accounts of the 20 cases side by side with the committee’s accounts, however, the truth is far from clear. In each instance, the C.I.A. makes a credible case that information it obtained after using coercive tactics played an important role.

The committee contended that the most useful information from Mr. Zubaydah actually came while the F.B.I. was questioning him, using noncoercive tactics before he was waterboarded. But the C.I.A. points out that Mr. Zubaydah had been subjected to five days of sleep deprivation, a highly coercive and painful tactic, when the F.B.I. interrogated him.

The committee repeatedly asserted that critical information was obtained not from C.I.A. interrogations but from detainees in “the custody of a foreign government.” In detailing how the United States located Osama bin Laden, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who led the committee, cited seven such instances. But she did not even acknowledge the likelihood that the other governments, to which the C.I.A. was regularly rendering suspects for torture, used techniques even more abusive than the C.I.A.’s.

That conclusion in turn casts doubt on the committee’s other main finding — namely, that the C.I.A. repeatedly lied about the program’s efficacy.

The C.I.A. admits that it should never have claimed “that the information it acquired could not have been obtained some other way.” Such assertions, it says, were “sincerely believed but were also inherently speculative.” But that is hardly a major concession. Anyone who thinks about it for a minute will realize that it is impossible to know whether information obtained in one way might not have been obtained in some other way.

While I’m at it, it seems pretty clear from the last quote here that the Senate report did not claim that all information acquired from this program actually was available to be obtained some other way, as Tom claimed here, because if that were the case then it wouldn’t be a matter of things being “sincerely believed but were also inherently speculative”.