Authoritative report documents US torture

[Craig234]

You do realize that this is the Internet forum equivalent of "the dog ate my homework"? You can do it once and maybe people will believe it. Maybe. Twice in the same number of days? And after having already done it about a month ago? Not likely.

Very likely. And the truth. And you're out of line to question it.

It wasn't an "editing error". We've been arguing about that post for two days now. I personally have referred back to it and re-read it at least four times.

It was an editing error. YOU have referred back to it and re-read it four times. I referred back to it and re-read it zero times that I recall, while I was referring to what I thought I had posted during that period, until tonight, when I did go back and re-read it to grab the exact quote where I had added that information. When doing that is the first time I noticed it wasn't there.

You just claimed that you meant to put in a sentence making your scenario closer to a ticking-bomb scenario, but it mysteriously didn't appear. So how can you say the attempt to revise was in the original post?

It's very simple: first I'm thinking of what I want to write, then I write it, I often edit, cutting moving, rephrasing.

In fact it is not only the posts you see, I have literally thousands of posts saved I didn't post. For a post you see I might have written four more responses to the same topic I didn't post - and this can occassionally make me remember writing it in a draft I didn't post, and think it was in the posted version. It happens.

For example, I'd written a full post responding to you criticizing their using the phrase 'despicable souls'.

I didn't post it, and soon after saw you admit you had misread them - it had seemed clear to me. (Of course, how many times are you going to claim THAT, expecting to be believed?)

I have like 10 posts about things with you not posted in the last day or two - and need to remember everything I posted or didn't post when commenting on what I posted.

This was NOT that situation - I don't have an unposted post with the more complete question I was asking; I simply had planned what I wanted to say, and assume I got sidetracked on other posts or windows or whatever interruptions and thought I had typed it in when I hadn't.

It most certainly was not. You painted a scenario that had nothing to do with what was being discussed and tried to equate it to the actual scenarios for which people said they thought torture could be excused. And then when I took issue with it, you changed it completely.

That is false. The situation I posed exactly met the rules I listed that came from people justifying torture in the other situation. It did not 'have nothing to do with what was being discussed', it had everything to do with it - and one flaw I realized after writing the first version, that the chances of getting information were unfairly low to make it comparable, which I increased in the added information which *slightly* changed the scenario, far from completely - just clarifying a high chance villagers would have info, and that's it.

You spotted the same difference, you have *greatly and falsely exaggerated it*. My first response was to say what I thought I had posted, you challenged it, I found the error.

Not only that, but accused me of misrepresenting what you wrote.

Yes, I did. Because you said something that was false accoding to what I thought I'd posted. You said it again, I checked and found the error, I admitted the error.

Then you made this completely false and inappropriate attack about it for no reason.

You actually think anyone is interested in discussing your ridiculous post #41 at this point? Why, so you can attack them, claim they misrepresented your argument, then make excuses about how you really meant to say something else, and edit the post again?

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Some people even discuss your ridiculous posts, like claiming that everything about the issue of chemical weapons is the same as land mines, and so any issue discussed with chemical weapons has to include land mines as a chemical weapon. Oh, wait, no one discussed that ridiculous post, they correctly ignored it.

See how you sound - and you say people post with belligerence?

It is absurd to suggest I would 'attack them', that I would claim they misrepresented my argument, that there would be an editing problem (not 'excuses' as you dishonestly say).

For one post that rare situation happens, I can show you hundreds of posts it doesn't.

That's just you trolling, insulting without any basis and not honestly.

I have a better idea: cool it with the intellectually dishonest argument tactics and false accusations of how others are misrepresenting you when, at best, they appear to be better at reading your own posts than you are.

I've said you are a master of irony in your criticisms, and you keep up the perfect record. There's not one word of intellectual dishonesty in my post - but there is in yours.

I think I've handled this editing mistake about as well as it can be handled - you have handled it about as badly as it can be, full of false accusations and exaggeration.

 

[Craig234]

No, I'm not.

I'm flatly stating it: you are being dishonest. Period. And worse, you're being dishonest about your prior dishonesty.

I'm not being dishonest, and you are. Period.

I do not believe for one flat second that there was a sentence in that post that conveniently changes the scenario you've been talking about for two days that you just-so-happened-to-forget to put in. And as I said, you've used this excuse at least two other times recently.

Every word I have said is consistent with my thinking I'd posted that sentence.

What a shock. My second scenario had one flaw, that one change would fix.

You read my post and found that issue. How incredobly unbelievable that while writing and editing the post I found it also, and planned that one change?

I mean, that is just boggling. It's more likely you will win the lottery that an issue that obvious could POSSIBLY be found by you and also by me. Excellent logic.

This entire issue is absurd - it's you trolling to make irresponsible and dishonest attacks for no reason about issue that is completely resolved with the addition of a sentence.

But you sure find the time to make these false accusations over, and over, and over.

It's not an 'excuse'. It's an editing error. I recall one other - and then I recall about 20 more that I caught and fixed. Yiou may not be aware, but I have a lot of posting to have some.

And one more thing, even with that sentence added, your portrayal yesterday was still inaccurate.

Your newly revised post #41 scenario:



And here's what you said last night:


Emphasis mine. So you are STILL revising what you wrote in post #41 -- and still not being honest about the scenario you portrayed.

I've had it up to here with your bullshit. If you have a problem with that, report me to the admins.

Finally, at least you try to make a point on topic.

Let's compare the two versions - which aren't the same word for word, but are exactly the same in substance, without your bolding that ignores important words. with my bolding.

New post 41 edit:

Edit to add a sentence I'd meant to include but didn't: assume our military has determined some villagers, we don't know which, can very likely provide info leading to the Taliban that will save lives).

My version last night:

That's why I stipulated in my example that they're nearly certain that some of the villagers will have information leading to Taliban who are planning to kill US military.

That it will very likely save US troops' lives. That's very different than you you portrayed my example, and sure does reduce any 'absurd' issue.

So, they say basically the exact same thing.

So you're still not being honest about what I said - to use your phrase.

I'd just say you made another innocent error. But it's not looking that way much now.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I've allowed myself to get far too emotionally involved here, and for that I apologize to the readership of the Discussion Club. I will not be posting further in this thread.

 

[smackababy]

Smack,

Are you a fan of the US Constitution?

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted".

Sorry, my subscription did not update for this thread for some reason. Now, these interrogations are not punishment. It is a way to break people ready to die for their cause. I take it you're a fan of just asking them nicely for the location of their superiors or their plans for killing Americans? And if they don't tell you, just letting them go? Do I think we should waterboard drug dealers to give up their suppliers? Of course not. I am not talking about average criminals. I am talking about members of a network whose primary goal is the death of innocent lives and the destruction of the ideals of the "West".

 

[jackstar7]

It's my understanding that information obtained via violent/painful torture is much less reliable due to the victim being willing to say anything to stop the pain.

If the screwdriver in your toolbox strips a fair number of your screws, why keep using that screwdriver if there are other methodologies that can yield more reliable results?

 

[smackababy]

It's my understanding that information obtained via violent/painful torture is much less reliable due to the victim being willing to say anything to stop the pain.

If the screwdriver in your toolbox strips a fair number of your screws, why keep using that screwdriver if there are other methodologies that can yield more reliable results?

That is a misconception though. We don't abstract information while a detainee is in pain. We use it to break their will to resist. And it is not like we have no other information to go on. We don't say "Do you know <insert name>? Is he connected with <insert other name>?" These are professional investigators.

And again, I will pose the question, what exactly are the other tools we have to use in these situations? These guys are not afraid of life imprisonment or even death.

 

[jackstar7]

That is a misconception though. We don't abstract information while a detainee is in pain. We use it to break their will to resist. And it is not like we have no other information to go on. We don't say "Do you know <insert name>? Is he connected with <insert other name>?" These are professional investigators.

And again, I will pose the question, what exactly are the other tools we have to use in these situations? These guys are not afraid of life imprisonment or even death.

Firstly, if it is a misconception and you stand by the validity of information gained through torture, can you cite examples where it worked and worked better than other methods? It's not clear to me why you have authority on this subject.

Psychology. People can be de-programmed. They can be turned.

Sure we know how to hurt people in nigh-infinite ways, but we also know how to convince someone to see the other side.

 

[smackababy]

Firstly, if it is a misconception and you stand by the validity of information gained through torture, can you cite examples where it worked and worked better than other methods? It's not clear to me why you have authority on this subject.

Psychology. People can be de-programmed. They can be turned.

Sure we know how to hurt people in nigh-infinite ways, but we also know how to convince someone to see the other side.

I never claimed to have authority on any subject. But the idea that we torture victims say anything to get it to stop AND we take that information as truthful fact is a misconception.

And "turning" does not always work, and even when it does, takes a long time. These are people fighting against the idea of America itself. How exactly do you purpose we "make them see the other side." You are going against everything their culture and programming stood for. Fanatics don't just defect because you "show them the light" so to speak.

Methods like sleep deprivation do things like wear down mental fortitude and cause someone to slip up in their practiced story or change it. That helps break down the maze of information and misinformation we have to sift through to put the entire puzzle together. While highly dramaticized, "Zero Dark Thirty" shows examples of information gathering used to build a bigger picture. This network is most likely not set up where everyone knows the real picture or most of the picture at all. It helps them stay safe when the enemy (US in this case) gain leverage over one or even a few of their operatives.

Edit: I realize it might sound as if I am for torture or against other ways. I apologize if I sound as such. I am not against more peaceful ways, I just have no qualms against using the most effective methods to save as many innocents as possible. If a way to break down the will to resist of a detainee is more or equally effective as the methods we currently use and is more humane, I am all for it. But until someone comes up with a method like that, I think we should use the best option we have available. I will never advocate taking the moral high ground when it comes to saving innocent lives just for the sake of saying we are "better" than someone else.

 

[ichy]

Yes, absolutely wrong to torture him for the information. Might be the ONLY solution to the problem. But it is still ethically wrong. So, you have to decide how much your ethics are worth.

I'm sorry but any "ethical" system that's that inflexible and black & white is worthless.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm sorry but any "ethical" system that's that inflexible and black & white is worthless.

By that logic you're saying there is a right time to rape someone.

 

[smackababy]

By that logic you're saying there is a right time to rape someone.

There might be a situation where it is required. However, I cannot think of one right now. =( I am usually pretty good at that.

But a system with zero flexibility will break.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm sorry but any "ethical" system that's that inflexible and black & white is worthless.

No, ethical systems are black and white. The entire point of an ethical system is to tell the difference between right and wrong. A ethical system is only really useful if it makes the really hard choices, that if something is ethical when it requires little sacrifice then it must also be ethical when it requires large sacrifice. If if has more then a tiny smidgen of grey area it is not a good ethical system, it just becomes a system for justifying what ever action you want it to.

 

[smackababy]

No, ethical systems are black and white. The entire point of an ethical system is to tell the difference between right and wrong. A ethical system is only really useful if it makes the really hard choices, that if something is ethical when it requires little sacrifice then it must also be ethical when it requires large sacrifice. If if has more then a tiny smidgen of grey area it is not a good ethical system, it just becomes a system for justifying what ever action you want it to.

Except the real world does not work like that. Let's take killing as an example. Taking another person's life is considered unethical, unless it is a punishment for an offense previously deemed a capital offense, or it is in the defense of yourself and others, or you are instructed to because politicians start wars, or they are in a state where the quality of life is so diminished it is more humane to take their life. Seems like a pretty big gray area. That doesn't even mention that the "ethicalness" of something largely depends on the culture and religious / spiritual belief system of the people.

 

[woolfe9998]

There might be a situation where it is required. However, I cannot think of one right now. =( I am usually pretty good at that.

But a system with zero flexibility will break.

"Rape that woman or I will shoot your kids."

The point being that it may be appropriate to prevent a greater evil.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Except the real world does not work like that.

Of course it does. It is just that most people are not very ethical.

Let's take killing as an example. Taking another person's life is considered unethical, unless it is a punishment for an offense previously deemed a capital offense, or it is in the defense of yourself and others, or you are instructed to because politicians start wars, or they are in a state where the quality of life is so diminished it is more humane to take their life.

Some people disagree with you. Some people believe that it is MURDER, not simply taking a persons life, that is unethical. Others believe that taking another persons life for ANY reason, including self defense, is unethical. The issue is not which one is right, only that each system is internally consistent in regards to the premises they start with.

That doesn't even mention that the "ethicalness" of something largely depends on the culture and religious / spiritual belief system of the people.

There is a very slight, but important, difference between ethics and morals.
Morals refer to behavior customary in our culture or society. Morals may change as a person moves from one society to the next.
Ethics refer to personal standards of right and wrong. Ethics do not change as a person moves from one society to the next.

 

[woolfe9998]

Some people disagree with you. Some people believe that it is MURDER, not simply taking a persons life, that is unethical. Others believe that taking another persons life for ANY reason, including self defense, is unethical. The issue is not which one is right, only that each system is internally consistent in regards to the premises they start with.

The fallacy here is that anything can be framed as a moral absolute. Never kill another person without justification. The "never" makes it sound like an absolute. In reality, it's situational like all morality.

Never rape someone unless you're doing it to prevent murder. Another absolute?

Never torture unless it's to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Absolute?

Which acts should be morally prohibited regardless of the circumstances? I can't think of a single one.

 

[smackababy]

Some people disagree with you. Some people believe that it is MURDER, not simply taking a persons life, that is unethical. Others believe that taking another persons life for ANY reason, including self defense, is unethical. The issue is not which one is right, only that each system is internally consistent in regards to the premises they start with.

So, my belief is that is is okay to take anyone's life, so long as they have properly offended you. Proper being subjective to the individual taking the life. Personal ethics don't work.

There is a very slight, but important, difference between ethics and morals.
Morals refer to behavior customary in our culture or society. Morals may change as a person moves from one society to the next.
Ethics refer to personal standards of right and wrong. Ethics do not change as a person moves from one society to the next.

Right and wrong differ greatly across, not only regions, but history as well. What a culture views as wrong today, could be perfectly acceptable and unethical in a different culture at a different time.

 

[jackstar7]

Which acts should be morally prohibited regardless of the circumstances? I can't think of a single one.

Rape stands.

You can't be made to rape someone. What's effectively happening is that two people are being made to have sex by the person threatening to do worse. If both parties are being forced, I don't think you can also say that one is raping the other.


In your example of "rape this person or your kids die" don't you also have to process that someone making this situation happen is probably going to kill those kids regardless? I'm just not sure there's a time to rape someone... or I'm losing sight of the bigger picture here.

 

[smackababy]

Rape stands.

You can't be made to rape someone. What's effectively happening is that two people are being made to have sex by the person threatening to do worse. If both parties are being forced, I don't think you can also say that one is raping the other.


In your example of "rape this person or your kids die" don't you also have to process that someone making this situation happen is probably going to kill those kids regardless? I'm just not sure there's a time to rape someone... or I'm losing sight of the bigger picture here.

Well, a somewhat dated example of rape being perfectly acceptable is in medieval combat. Raping the noblewomen of a neighboring country / keep gave you an effective claim to the ruling said area. You implanted an heir that could succeed and give your clan rule over more dominion. While by today's standards this is barbaric, during the conflicts of old, it is almost considered unethical to not do this.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, a somewhat dated example of rape being perfectly acceptable is in medieval combat. Raping the noblewomen of a neighboring country / keep gave you an effective claim to the ruling said area. You implanted an heir that could succeed and give your clan rule over more dominion. While by today's standards this is barbaric, during the conflicts of old, it is almost considered unethical to not do this.

So do you feel as though it's cyclical and we might return to that ethical framework?

 

[Craig234]

It'd be nice to not get too caught up in the circumstances of justifiable rape, and back to the topic of widespread, documented actual torture by our country in my link.

 

[jackstar7]

It'd be nice to not get too caught up in the circumstances of justifiable rape, and back to the topic of widespread, documented actual torture by our country in my link.

Well, I similarly think that torture is not an option worth exploring, but that's largely because I find it repulsive.

 

[Craig234]

Well, I similarly think that torture is not an option worth exploring, but that's largely because I find it repulsive.

I'm not suggesting doing it, I'm suggesting discussing the fact that we did do it - and how to prevent it happening again.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm not suggesting doing it, I'm suggesting discussing the fact that we did do it - and how to prevent it happening again.

You'd have to demonstrate that it has negligible effectiveness, as you will always find a strong percentage of the population willing to justify the means with the ends.

 

[Craig234]

You'd have to demonstrate that it has negligible effectiveness, as you will always find a strong percentage of the population willing to justify the means with the ends.

I don't have to, in that it's not the basis for my opposition - but that can also be shown, the report I lined covers it pretty well.