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: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:03AM
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
"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
No, I said no such thing. I answered his unrealistic hypothetical completely honestly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:13PM
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:11AM
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
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
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
at least in those situations.
Which morally speaking isn't saying much.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:44AM
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
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
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
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
You're talking about something different than I am.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:46PM
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.