Torture report

[Cato]

Any attempts to justify torture are patently disgusting. Those that do are simply fucking immoral. The recently released report stating that torture is ineffective is not news, this fact has previously been well established. In addition, the excuses and reaction from those justifying torture are very predictable.

This will be a long quote, but I think it is critical to the conversation. I will also insert a link to the entire paper:

Scholars have analyzed the elements of the defensive responses common to many governments once their use of torture has been exposed (Conroy, 2000; Crelinsten & Schmid, 1995). Many aspects of these analyses are consistent with the response of the U.S. government to revelations that it used torture during interrogations. Initially, governments may deny that torture has been used. However, once the tactic of simple denial becomes untenable, it is common for governments to claim that their activities do not meet the definition of torture. A government’s use of torture may be minimized as “vigorous” or “in-depth” or “enhanced” interrogation that does not result in lasting injuries. For example, in a series of memoranda issued from 2001 to 2004, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Defense argued that to qualify as torture, interrogation techniques would need to inflict pain, “... equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death”; that this “severe pain and suffering must be inflicted with specific intent”; and that, “the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants” (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2007). Such attempts to narrow the definition of torture are frequently accompanied by attacks on those who revealed the abuses (e.g., journalists and human rights groups) and claims that those who expose or oppose the use of torture are guilty of giving comfort and encouragement to the enemy (Alford, 1990).

Government officials may also attempt to localize the problem in time or localize the problem within a few individuals. The time argument is that, although torture may have been used, it is no longer being used, so people who raise the topic are simply dredging up the past (McGuffin, 1974). The implication is that further discussion of past torture is no longer constructive, and might even be a dangerous distraction from the important task of responding to current and future threats. An especially common way of localizing the problem of torture is to claim that it was the work of a “few bad apples” who exceeded their authority and ignored official policy (Kelman, 2005; Mayer, 2008). This explanation was used at Abu Ghraib to exculpate all but a handful of soldiers in the prisoner abuse scandal. In attributional terms, the “bad apples” explanation offers a dispositional analysis—it lays the blame for cruelty on the flawed character of a few renegade soldiers. Simultaneously, this explanation discounts and diverts attention away from the situational forces that allow or encourage troops to act in abusive ways. Finally, government officials may claim that torture was an essential and effective tool that produced “invaluable” information that prevented attacks and saved countless lives (Conroy, 2000). This claim is impossible to verify because we cannot know why an attack did not occur, or even what information was disclosed as a result of torture.

Advocates of torture often refer to the hypothetical “ticking time bomb scenario” (e.g., Dershowitz, 2003). This widely used rhetorical justification for the use of torture as an interrogation tactic presupposes that a government has in its custody a terrorist who knows where a time bomb is hidden. That bomb will soon explode and kill many thousands of innocent people. Once advocates of torture lay out this scenario, we are asked the following question: Should the interrogator be permitted to use torture on the terrorist to extract information that will avert this impending massacre?

The implausible ticking-time-bomb scenario rests on several questionable assumptions: that a specific piece of “actionable” information could be used to avert the disaster; that somehow interrogators know for certain that the suspect possesses specific information about the location of the bomb; that the threat is imminent; that only torture would lead to disclosure of the information; and that torture is the fastest means of extracting this valid, actionable information. Of course, part of the appeal of this scenario is that it also portrays the torturer as a principled, heroic figure who reluctantly uses torture to save innocent lives. This carefully rigged, forced-choice scenario pits the temporary pain of one evil person against the deaths of thousands (or even millions) of innocent people. And, once we have acknowledged that there might possibly be a situation where torture could yield precious, life-saving information, it is then a small step to conclude that we are sometimes morally obliged to use torture. While this scenario might provide a useful stimulus for discussion in college ethics courses, or an interesting plot device for a television drama, we can find no evidence that it has ever occurred and it appears highly improbable.

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanz...gation.pdf

There is never a reasonable justification for torturing another human being, never. There is also no excuse for defending the practice. It's shameful that some among us do so. What should happen is full recognition of the facts of our (the U.S.'s) use of torture, put the proper oversight in place to ensure that torture is not used in the future, and have those responsible tried by the ICC for the obvious war crimes.

[Nope]

I can understand the desire for revenge when you see a beheading video.

The problem is that it seems that torture doesn't work and might actually cause the loss of more lives. There is also the fact that once we allow torture for one group, how do we know that our government won't slowly begin to add other groups that are worthy of torture? And how do we know for certain that the people being tortured are guilty of the crimes that they are accused?

It is not antiAmerican to hold our country up to a high standard and to point out when we fail.

Why would we want to become like the enemy that we fear? If we allow torture, doesn't that mean that we are really no better then the groups that we are torturing?

[simplemoss]

What would you prefer???

Being beheaded?

Or have food shoved up your ass and have your nuts electrocuted, being cuffed to a ceiling for days with no water or food wearing a daiper that's never changed, then being drowned, then shoved into a box no bigger than a coffin, and as you slowly starve to death, they play Barney the dinosaur's theme song blasting aloud so you cant sleep, until you slowly and painfully are driven too insanity and perish

[Minimalist]

Congratulations, Adolf. You are happy being as big a bastard as the other guys. That makes you a fucking barbarian too.

Fuck off.

[Tonus]

I would prefer to have more choices than being tortured or being killed.

[simplemoss]

Congratulations, Adolf. You are happy being as big a bastard as the other guys. That makes you a fucking barbarian too.

Fuck off.

was that directed towards me???

[Thumpalumpacus]

Any attempts to justify torture are patently disgusting. Those that do are simply fucking immoral. The recently released report stating that torture is ineffective is not news, this fact has previously been well established. In addition, the excuses and reaction from those justifying torture are very predictable.

This will be a long quote, but I think it is critical to the conversation. I will also insert a link to the entire paper:

Scholars have analyzed the elements of the defensive responses common to many governments once their use of torture has been exposed (Conroy, 2000; Crelinsten & Schmid, 1995). Many aspects of these analyses are consistent with the response of the U.S. government to revelations that it used torture during interrogations. Initially, governments may deny that torture has been used. However, once the tactic of simple denial becomes untenable, it is common for governments to claim that their activities do not meet the definition of torture. A government’s use of torture may be minimized as “vigorous” or “in-depth” or “enhanced” interrogation that does not result in lasting injuries. For example, in a series of memoranda issued from 2001 to 2004, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Defense argued that to qualify as torture, interrogation techniques would need to inflict pain, “... equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death”; that this “severe pain and suffering must be inflicted with specific intent”; and that, “the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants” (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2007). Such attempts to narrow the definition of torture are frequently accompanied by attacks on those who revealed the abuses (e.g., journalists and human rights groups) and claims that those who expose or oppose the use of torture are guilty of giving comfort and encouragement to the enemy (Alford, 1990).

Government officials may also attempt to localize the problem in time or localize the problem within a few individuals. The time argument is that, although torture may have been used, it is no longer being used, so people who raise the topic are simply dredging up the past (McGuffin, 1974). The implication is that further discussion of past torture is no longer constructive, and might even be a dangerous distraction from the important task of responding to current and future threats. An especially common way of localizing the problem of torture is to claim that it was the work of a “few bad apples” who exceeded their authority and ignored official policy (Kelman, 2005; Mayer, 2008). This explanation was used at Abu Ghraib to exculpate all but a handful of soldiers in the prisoner abuse scandal. In attributional terms, the “bad apples” explanation offers a dispositional analysis—it lays the blame for cruelty on the flawed character of a few renegade soldiers. Simultaneously, this explanation discounts and diverts attention away from the situational forces that allow or encourage troops to act in abusive ways. Finally, government officials may claim that torture was an essential and effective tool that produced “invaluable” information that prevented attacks and saved countless lives (Conroy, 2000). This claim is impossible to verify because we cannot know why an attack did not occur, or even what information was disclosed as a result of torture.

Advocates of torture often refer to the hypothetical “ticking time bomb scenario” (e.g., Dershowitz, 2003). This widely used rhetorical justification for the use of torture as an interrogation tactic presupposes that a government has in its custody a terrorist who knows where a time bomb is hidden. That bomb will soon explode and kill many thousands of innocent people. Once advocates of torture lay out this scenario, we are asked the following question: Should the interrogator be permitted to use torture on the terrorist to extract information that will avert this impending massacre?

The implausible ticking-time-bomb scenario rests on several questionable assumptions: that a specific piece of “actionable” information could be used to avert the disaster; that somehow interrogators know for certain that the suspect possesses specific information about the location of the bomb; that the threat is imminent; that only torture would lead to disclosure of the information; and that torture is the fastest means of extracting this valid, actionable information. Of course, part of the appeal of this scenario is that it also portrays the torturer as a principled, heroic figure who reluctantly uses torture to save innocent lives. This carefully rigged, forced-choice scenario pits the temporary pain of one evil person against the deaths of thousands (or even millions) of innocent people. And, once we have acknowledged that there might possibly be a situation where torture could yield precious, life-saving information, it is then a small step to conclude that we are sometimes morally obliged to use torture. While this scenario might provide a useful stimulus for discussion in college ethics courses, or an interesting plot device for a television drama, we can find no evidence that it has ever occurred and it appears highly improbable.

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanz...gation.pdf

There is never a reasonable justification for torturing another human being, never. There is also no excuse for defending the practice. It's shameful that some among us do so. What should happen is full recognition of the facts of our (the U.S.'s) use of torture, put the proper oversight in place to ensure that torture is not used in the future, and have those responsible tried by the ICC for the obvious war crimes.

QFMFT

[Nope]

Congratulations, Adolf. You are happy being as big a bastard as the other guys. That makes you a fucking barbarian too.

Fuck off.

was that directed towards me???

I am pretty certain it was directed at A Theist.

[Ryantology]

No. It's the "Blame America First" shitballs like you who side with terrorists and defame your own country who are the problem.

Who is that liberal shaking hands with... oh, wait.


What sort of progressive would do such a... oh, that's right.


Fucking liberal Confederates shoving racial equality down everyone's.... dammit, sorry!


Another big government liberal?



We don't blame America. We blame American right wing terrorists.

[Nope]

This is one of the many problems with torture. Human beings make mistakes and there is always the possibility that the wrong person is tortured.

As we now know, they could not. ­Twenty-six of the 119 detainees turned out to be innocent. One of them was a Pakistani or Afghan man named Janat Gul. In July 2004, the CIA seized Gul, acting on a tip from a local informant who claimed he knew of a terror plot. His interrogators subjected him to sleep deprivation, slammed him into walls, and forced him to stand for as long as 47 hours in a row until he suffered hallucinations that he could see and hear his wife and children. He begged to be killed. Eventually, the informant who fingered Gul admitted to fabricating his story.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...icans.html

At the very least, Cheney should be tried for war crimes

The host, Bret Baier, asked Cheney about Bush’s reported discomfort when told of a detainee’s having been chained to a dungeon ceiling, clothed only in a diaper, and forced to urinate and defecate on himself. “What are we supposed to do? Kiss him on both cheeks and say ‘Please, please, tell us what you know’?” Cheney said. “Of course not. We did exactly what needed to be done in order to catch those who were guilty on 9/11 and prevent a further attack, and we were successful on both parts.”

Here, finally, was the brutal moral logic of Cheneyism on bright display. The insistence by his fellow partisans on averting their eyes from the horrible truth at least grows out of a human reaction. Cheney does not even understand why somebody would look away. His soul is a cold, black void.