Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Blackmoore on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the painful-truths dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:30AM

    by Kell (292) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:30AM (#124479)

    I disagree with your assessment. I believe what he's saying here is that "If it is for whatever constructed reason a desperately urgent thing to do then, regardless of cost to the self, the principled person will do it". If you legalise things, you tacitly condone them. If you have something that is never ever legal and the personal ramifications for doing it are dire, then it will only be done in cases where the externalities will justify it regardless of legality. Would you torture a person to save all of humanity? Of course you would; if you didn't you would be a monster for letting your personal quibbles kill every man woman and child by inaction. That doesn't mean that we should have existing exceptions for those cases, but it anticipates that there is a relief valve in case it ever is somehow truly necessary. Analogously, there is a law against murder, but I will definitely kill someone to save my family laws be damned.

    --
    Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:17AM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:17AM (#124508)

    Would you torture a person to save all of humanity?

    If we needed to torture someone to save all of humanity, humanity wouldn't be worth saving.

    • (Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:24AM

      by Kell (292) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:24AM (#124537)

      If we needed to torture someone to save all of humanity, humanity wouldn't be worth saving.

      That's a pithy statement, but unfortunately it falls down when you take into account the existence of conflict.
       
      Sometimes people do things that harm one another; they even feel justified in doing them. Civilisation as a whole has asserted that an acceptable level of force may be applied to stop them. How much violence is acceptable depends on context: eg, tasing a violent drunk, shooting an armed intruder, or bombing an enemy state. Torture is likewise a violent method being to extract information with the goal of stopping future harm. What makes torture the subject of debate is that it is being applied against a person who is not a direct physical threat; the harm being prevented is abstract and prospective (and susceptible to extrajudicial abuse). It is a matter of degrees. Consider the alternate case of perjury: a witness is told they must tell the truth about a matter, or else they will be put in jail and held there for some fixed term by guards authorised to use violent force. We don't consider this to be "torture" because of the legal framework involved, but ultimately we are still using threat of force to coerce cooperation, albeit with a minimum amount of violence.
       
      The use of force to minimise harm does not mean that humanity is not worth saving. It only means that conflict still exists in the world - perhaps one day we'll all grow up and violence will not be used to solve disputes. For now, we do not live in that reality.

      --
      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:31AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:31AM (#124540)

        That's a pithy statement, but unfortunately it falls down when you take into account the existence of conflict.

        It doesn't fall down, because it's a value statement. Those are simply my principles. No torture, ever.

        We're talking about capturing someone and then torturing them; anything else is completely offtopic, including shooting armed intruders who themselves are still active threats. So the rest of your reply doesn't interest me in the slightest.

        • (Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:44AM

          by Kell (292) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:44AM (#124546)

          Well, I'd say it's an absolutist statement wrapped in a conditional: "If we needed to torture someone to save all of humanity, humanity wouldn't be worth saving."
           
          It boils down to definitions of what is torture and what is need. I've shown that torture lies on a spectrum of violent behaviours that protect civilisation (at the extreme end, I agree), so really we are quibbling about degrees. As such, the range of violent options and degrees of torturousness employed is actually germane - eg, waterboarding for the bomb disarm codes vs singing Broadway tunes obnoxiously to coerce kids to get off my lawn.
           
          Educate me: how do you discern between what interrogation techniques are and are not torture?

          --
          Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:03AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:03AM (#124549)

            It boils down to definitions of what is torture and what is need.

            "need" = required for saving the human race from a hypothetical threat that won't ever exist.

            I've shown that torture lies on a spectrum of violent behaviours that protect civilisation

            Yeah, if you define everything as torture.

            vs singing Broadway tunes obnoxiously to coerce kids to get off my lawn.

            Unless you captured them and forced them to listen to you, that isn't torture; they could just walk away. I can't think of a scenario where a torture victim isn't restrained at the moment, but almost always, someone being tortured is first captured.

            Educate me: how do you discern between what interrogation techniques are and are not torture?

            I can't give you an exact line, but I know that waterboarding and what these fools do is torture.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:21AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:21AM (#124571) Journal

              "need" = required for saving the human race from a hypothetical threat that won't ever exist.

              In other words, you have an absolute position because you don't think your beliefs will ever be tested.

              • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:13PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:13PM (#124630)

                No, I said no such thing. I answered his unrealistic hypothetical completely honestly.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:13PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:13PM (#124655) Journal
                  You are right. You never explicitly say that all your moral grandstanding is because you never think you will ever be tested by this particular contrived moral quandary. But when your argument against boils down to "it won't happen", then you aren't arguing over the moral aspects of the problem.
                  • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:11AM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:11AM (#124954)

                    You never explicitly say that all your moral grandstanding is because you never think you will ever be tested by this particular contrived moral quandary.

                    And neither do you, because there are all kinds of hypothetical situations that will never come about that would also test your principles. It means nothing.

                    But when your argument against boils down to "it won't happen"

                    My argument boiled down to no such thing. I merely mentioned that it won't happen. Learn the difference.

                    Because every decision government makes saves tens of millions of lives?

                    No, because torture is wrong and no one should condone it. We are talking about government torture. That's the realm of limitless government.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:36AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:36AM (#125000) Journal

                      No, because torture is wrong and no one should condone it. We are talking about government torture. That's the realm of limitless government.

                      Who actually "condones" torture in this thread? Is it you?

                      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 12 2014, @07:38AM

                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday December 12 2014, @07:38AM (#125400)

                        Anyone saying they would torture someone in some hypothetical extreme situation to save lives apparently condones torture, at least in those situations.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 12 2014, @11:21PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 12 2014, @11:21PM (#125622) Journal

                          at least in those situations.

                          Which morally speaking isn't saying much.

            • (Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:44AM

              by Kell (292) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:44AM (#124578)

              I won't disagree that the behaviour of these people was wrong. I feel we are on the same side of the debate in that regards. My point here is that it's not a simple problem. There is no clear line between interrogation and torture, and it's only muddier for people whose moral affinity is not as attuned as yours.
               
              I don't adhere to the notion of moral absolutes; I can always find a counter-example to those assertions. For example, I very much expect I would be willing to torture someone to save my family (and I'm deeply skeptical of any person who says they wouldn't). The OP's point of "Make it illegal and ruinous for anyone to do, and it will only be done in case of utmost need" is probably fair.

              --
              Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:16AM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:16AM (#124601) Homepage
                Fortunately, we have a scale of different repremands and punishments ranging from an off-the-record "don't do that again" to, in some countries, a death sentence in order to deal with the different magnitudes of transgressions.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:22PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:22PM (#124635)

                There is no clear line between interrogation and torture

                We could always evaluate the science and see what it does to people. There might not be a clear line, but some things are just obviously torture.

                For example, I very much expect I would be willing to torture someone to save my family (and I'm deeply skeptical of any person who says they wouldn't).

                That wouldn't make it any less wrong.

                • (Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:29PM

                  by Kell (292) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:29PM (#124905)

                  That wouldn't make it any less wrong.

                  And now we circle back to the original post. Yes, we should punish torture severely. The realpolitik is that if someone feels it is a vital expedient to torture someone, then they will do it anyway. Thus, we do not need legal provisions that explicitly allow torture in any circumstances. We should make it highly illegal and severely censure those who do it - that way, the only way it will ever happen is if someone believes its urgency justifies their own direct and assured punishment as a result. Right or wrong is subjective, but the policy is grounded in game theory with a little dose of human psychology. It's a similar mechanism to jury nullification.

                  --
                  Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                  • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:08AM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:08AM (#124952)

                    You're talking about something different than I am.

                    • (Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:46PM

                      by Kell (292) on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:46PM (#125035)

                      In which case I have no idea what you're talking about... but this was what the OP was talking about in the first place.

                      --
                      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:11PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:11PM (#124685) Journal

        People, stop and think! Please, stop and think. There is discussion, even on this board, among people of greater than average intelligence, of the practical, real-politik value of torture. Torture is wrong. It is a crime against humanity. Full. Stop.

        Leave off the fake butch discussion of its utility. Leave off the "It's a dangerous world" crap. It has always been a dangerous world. It always will be. It does not change the fact that torture is totally, categorically, wrong. It is evil. Those who do it are evil. Those who order it done are evil. All of them must face the death penalty.

        If you do not agree, then kindly remove yourselves from our company and go live in some pariah state like North Korea where political opponents are fed to starving packs of wild dogs. You suck, and I don't want your kids playing with my kids.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:22PM

          by Kell (292) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:22PM (#124902)

          I don't condone torture, but I also do condone absoluteism, either. If one can't find a compelling reason that something could ever happen, they lack imagination or are a zealot. Are you seriously telling us that people should 'go away' just because they have a difference of opinion? Absoluteism is the bedfellow of extremism. I don't want your kids playing with my kids.

          --
          Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:23AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:23AM (#124944) Journal

            When it comes to torture, yes, that is an absolute position. Under no circumstances, ever.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:49PM

              by Kell (292) on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:49PM (#125036)

              Hypothetically thinking, what makes torture different from, say, use of nuclear weapons? Seriously, I would like to know what privilages one type of violence above others in terms of its unacceptibility. We as a civilisation are prepared to accept that it is sometimes ok to kill (in war, in the line of duty, etc) but somehow it's magically not to simply harm? What is the unifying principle here?

              --
              Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:20PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:20PM (#125051) Journal

                Because it's a war crime. There is no justification for torture under any circumstance because it is a crime against humanity. So please stop and consider where your moral relativism is taking you on this. You're essentially saying that there's nothing that you absolutely wouldn't do. Does that include, say, raping a child? Are you saying that you could see yourself having moral justification for that, under the right circumstances? Are you saying that there are totally, 100% despicable, evil acts that you could see yourself committing if the "context was right?" And that that would be OK?

                Some things are beyond the pale. Child rape and torture are at least two. I would also include things like genocide and ethnic cleansing.

                Please stop defending the indefensible. When you do that you don't just dehumanize the rest of us, you dehumanize yourself.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:23PM

                  by Kell (292) on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:23PM (#125078)

                  I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I would absolutely do the worst possible things for the best possible reasons. I (like most people) would kill for my family, and I would rate torture as being a lesser sin than killing. Obviously, the extingent circumstances needed to justify the truly reprehensible are pretty high. Would I wipe out one race of people to save all life in the univese? Yes. In an instant, because to do otherwise is monsterous. Fortunately, I am unlikely to ever be in that situation.

                  And no, just because you call something evil or a crime doesn't make it beyond the pale for a rational person. Murder is a crime, but killing in war is regarded as an acceptable behaviour when justified; the act itself is not evil, just its reason. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't torture someone to save your own family if you were absolutely convinced it would really work and was the one and only way?
                   
                  You don't like relativism - I get it. Just as I don't like absoluteism. The difference is that I'm not going to tell you that you're somehow less of a person for believing in it. And also, before you buckle your swashes about other people's morality, do remember that just because I think that extreme behaviour can be justifiable in extreme circumstances doesn't mean that I'm somehow arguing that torture or genocide are ever good or right, or that the Americans in any way were justified in using torture. My philosophical position is simply that sometimes doing the despicable thing is the best of a lousy set of options.

                  --
                  Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:23PM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:23PM (#125104) Journal

                    And my position is that sometimes virtuous death is better than evil. If raping a thousand children would save my own family, I would still not do it. If torturing one man to death would save my family, I would still not do it. If wiping out a race of people, say, the Jews, would save the rest of humanity and my family, I would still not do it. And it's not a hypothetical family that I'm talking about, but my actual family and actual children. But then, I believe in God and an afterlife and that there are consequences to our actions in life that extend beyond death.

                    Consider that when you make excuses for monstrous acts, you too become a monster. The vast, vast majority of humanity agrees and has agreed that torture is a crime against humanity. If you choose to nevertheless excuse a crime against humanity, then you render yourself part of the conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity. Your saying that you would torture someone under certain circumstances is not OK. It's not a philosophical, academic question. It's a question about your humanity. And in this repartee at least you have failed, and failed again, wilfully. So perhaps you think that you're just typing words on an internet forum and that it doesn't mean anything, but what you are signalling is that you condone evil and that you consciously comply with that evil. That, my friend, makes you evil too.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                    • (Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:03PM

                      by Kell (292) on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:03PM (#125132)

                      Consider that when you make excuses for monstrous acts, you too become a monster.

                      I disagree with this statement. Ultimately our difference of opinion depends on whether intentions matter or if only action matters. Ie. are actions innately good or evil? I think no, whereas you obviously think yes. Unless one of us can convince the other differently, it is unlikely that we will ever find resolution on this matter.

                      I further disagree that "making excuses" for monsterous acts indicates culpability in the act or is somehow tantamount to crime against humanity. If an action is justified, then it needs no excusing and there is no responsibility for anyone except the person who took it upon themselves to perform the act. I deny entirely your premise that identifying the rational basis for action makes me somehow liable for it. That's simply ridiculous.
                       
                      I will kill a man threatening my family (yes, my real actual non-hypothetical family) if that is the only way to save them. You can throw me in prision for it, but I'd do it again. Why? Because I would believe my action was justified. You might say it boils down to "the ends justify the means"; of course the more horrendous the means, the more critical and urgent that end had better be. I'm hardly going to kill a man who bears no credible risk to my family, even if he makes threatening statements? Why? Because the urgency doesn't justify it. If he had a gun pointed at their heads and made clear he was about to pull the trigger, then I would act with all possible violence to avert it.
                       
                      If you want to call me evil for defending my family, feel free. I could just as well call you evil for allowing harm to come to those you are charged to protect because you are too "principled" to take the moral burden upon yourself for their protection. Absolutist morals are a fine thing in civil life and it's great that people can enjoy the luxury of them, however it's not true for all parts of the world, or even sometimes in our own privilaged society. I pray that I will never need employ violence to protect that society or the people I care about. But I will, and I will rest well doing so.

                      --
                      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:10AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:10AM (#124599) Homepage
      You're making a judgement about all of humanity based on the actions of one person?

      You're worse than Old Testament God, at least he was prepared to spare Sodom if he found 50 righteous people there. You're prepared to see the whole planet burn even if there are *entire continents* (ones outside the US' borders, presuming this torturing is taking place in the US) of righteous people.

      Ever heard the expression "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"? You're throwing maybe billions of babies out. Congratulations - you're a better exterminator than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot put together!
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:15PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:15PM (#124633)

        You're making a judgement about all of humanity based on the actions of one person?

        I'm making a judgement that a world where you have you torture one person to save all of humanity probably has so many problems it isn't worth living in.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:45PM (#124913)

      If we needed to torture someone to save all of humanity, humanity wouldn't be worth saving.

      It must be so easy, so comfortable living in a world of pure black and white, with no shades of grey in between. After all, having to wrestle with morally complex situations can be so...wearisome. The rest of us, though, have to live in the real world. But I don't think I would recommend that for you. You and the rest of the Fundamentalists (whether religious, or not) would find that world far too frightening.