SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The NYT reports that with the release of the long-awaited Senate report on the use of torture by the United States government — a detailed account that will shed an unsparing light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s darkest practices after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US is bracing itself for the risk that it will set off a backlash overseas. Some leading Republican lawmakers have warned against releasing the report, saying that domestic and foreign intelligence reports indicate that a detailed account of the brutal interrogation methods used by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration could incite unrest and violence, even resulting in the deaths of Americans. The White House acknowledged that the report could pose a “greater risk” to American installations and personnel in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Iraq. But it said that the government had months to plan for the reverberations from its report — indeed, years — and that those risks should not delay the release of the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. “When would be a good time to release this report?” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, asked. “It’s difficult to imagine one, particularly given the painful details that will be included.”
Among the administration’s concerns is that terrorist groups will exploit the disclosures in the report for propaganda value. The Islamic State already clads its American hostages in orange jumpsuits, like those worn by prisoners in CIA interrogations. Hostages held by the Islamic State in Syria were subjected to waterboarding, one of the practices used by the CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists. The 480-page document reveals the results of Senate investigation into the CIA's use of torture and other techniques that violate international law against prisoners held on terrorism-related charges. Though many details of the Senate's findings will remain classified – the document is a summary of a 6,000-page report that is not being released – the report is expected to conclude that the methods used by the CIA to interrogate prisoners during the post-9/11 years were more extreme than previously admitted and produced no intelligence that could not have been acquired through legal means.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jackb_guppy on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:59PM
Well "torture" is a legal definition. We had lawyers who said what we were doing was not torture. (paraphrased)
That should go down the Nuremberg trials, where many were reported to "just following orders".
Doing something that is wrong, is doing something that is wrong, period.
If guys believed what they were doing is right and gives truthful answers, maybe they should try being the subject for 90days. If they after 90 days still say "right and gives truthful answers" then they are right. If at any point they say what they believe is the lie "it is wrong and gets lies", then rest of us are right. Would they do it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:38AM
The moment I read about the USA trying to legitimize torture and extrajudicial detention was the moment when I realized democracy there had failed. From then on, it was clear the USA had no moral credibility, and was just another autocratic dictatorship.
The NSA's activities, TPP, SOPA/PIPA etc in the years following have only served to confirm that view.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:34AM
But if they admit that, then that can't be relied on, as they were only admitting it in order to avoid more waterboarding. So we must fall back onto our prior believe that waterboarding is a valid and viable way of extracting useful information.
Only the people who survive 90 days insisting "waterboarding is not torture, and only reveals the truth" have a consistent (non-contradictory) stance.
This is a whole new twist on the liars paradox.
In the interest of science, I think we should carry it out though. However, to get the maximum from the experiment, it shouldn't be just the grunts who performed the waterboarding who partake, it should be all of the layers of command that approved it too - right to the top. We can then see whether different strata in the chain of command have greater tendencies one way or the other. For science!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:25PM
There was a programme on Channel 4 in the UK years ago where they asked some people to undergo US "enhanced interrogation" for a few days. They got a white American guy who was ex army and convinced that torture was necessary, and some Asian males. The American guy didn't last a day before asking to leave, but the Muslim guys managed to stick it out a bit longer.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:41PM
Absolutely - we should throw the book at those individuals who were "just following orders" - allowing such a defense is an invitation to your "troops" to just do what they're told no matter how abhorrent, which is absolutely not something any civilized nation should condone, no matter what the commanders would prefer.
But we should throw it even harder at the people giving those orders - they should have to serve a similar punishment for *every single instance* in which they gave such orders - including those given after the atrocities were comfortably ensconced in euphemisms an unspoken implications.
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:11AM
Wouldn't fly. They don't believe that what they are doing is so black and white, but rather bad, but "for the greater good", which is unfortunately a legitimate reason sometimes (e.g. cutting a person open is usually regarded as bad, but when it is to remove an inflamed appendix it could save their life), so here we enter the huge murky grey area of ethics. And also, they may still not want to confess to it even if they thought it was right because they would likely believe that the public (or whoever) "wouldn't understand".