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: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:20AM
This scenario is not impossible, but you have to understand it is both a bad and an extremely unlikely example. Nothing can be done in 5 minutes, not even torture itself, and if we have more time, then why not simply evacuate? Also, where does this 100% certainty comes from? In order for this example to work, you have to describe a circumstance where we know with 100% certainty that we have 5 minutes, and that it should take less than 5 minutes to disarm the bomb, and that we can spot a bad answer right away, and yet we totally lack the means to disarm the bomb by ourselves. Indeed, in practice we never have 100% certainty, and we consider ourselves lucky when we have 99%. And so the guy tells you "in order to diffuse the bomb, do XYZ". Doing XYZ takes about 5.1 minutes, so you blow up anyway. How do we guard against that? Continue the torture even after the guy "confesses" for a few more minutes?
Also, a poster above you said, why discuss whether torture is useful when it's already unethical? I actually agree with you in this one respect: if torture was indeed magical and produced results, then things wouldn't be as simple. But it's not. It is just awfully ineffective. It is so bloody useless, it is hard to even come up with a hypothetical example that would justify it over other, more humane methods. Here's an idea: offer a legitimate deal of some kind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:47AM
Even regular courts (you know, where you are allowed to have a lawyer present and present evidence) don't get anywhere near 99% certainty.
Not even for the death penalty.
Yet, when it comes to torture, it's always the people that we don't have enough evidence to even consider a real court.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:53AM
Nothing can be done in 5 minutes, not even torture itself, and if we have more time, then why not simply evacuate?
It takes about a day to evacuate all the people who travel to Manhattan Island. If you're evacuating everyone in Manhattan Island, it's going to take a lot longer than 5 minutes.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:25PM
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:00PM
The 100% certainties came from it being a hypothetical scenario, in order to ignore complicating factors (like "reality") to more clearly demonstrate my point, that there is no need to legally permit torture, because any situation dire enough that it can be justified is dire enough that one could break laws in order to do what may be right.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:05PM
Not to mention, the mere discussion of the practicality of torture is a radical, un-American departure from our received values as a nation and people. I don't give one good God-damn if a single piece of useful information was ever acquired through torture. The costs of getting that one piece of information far, far outweigh its utility. It *damns* us as a nation and people. I mean that in the religious sense. It damns us to hell.
Every single sector of the government that did this, ordered it, or even knew about it and said nothing, must be cleared out with a chainsaw. Every one.
Washington DC delenda est.