Getting into the grey

Getting into the grey (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> Getting into the grey (9/3/2009 6:37:20 PM)
Sometimes we have lots of questions, without a lot of good answers. Here is an article that asks a few about the ever contentious torture issue. Richard Cohen: Washinton Post

DomKen -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/3/2009 7:33:17 PM)
My basic problem with the 'ticking time bomb' scenario which is what Cohen is describing is that it is rare beyond belief. However what was done in 2002 and 2003 was not part of a 'ticking time bomb' scenario. The CIA report is publicly available here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/40838prs20090824.html And it never states that information gained through torture was instrumental in saving any lives. As a matter of fact it never says that 'actionable' intelligence was acquired by torture. That means that unless it is in a redacted section, which it shouldn't be since the criteria for what was redacted was protecting still classified methods and operations, the CIA got nothing useful from torture.

Kirata -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/3/2009 8:07:57 PM)
How a Detainee became an Asset K.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 6:15:14 AM)
quote: Ishmael is someone I invented, but he is not a far-fetched creation. You and I know he exists, has existed and will exist again. He is the enemy. This is the problem: fictional scenarios that have no resemblance to real life. They always paint this unrealistic picture from the movies where the knowledge stored in one man’s head is the key to stopping the slaughter of thousands of innocents. Why is it then when asked about progress made the government official will outline how hard it is to gather the information because there is no coherent structure of authority like a traditional enemy or that they operate in isolated splinter cells so that no single man knows too much? The other problem I have with it all is: yes you have captured a milkman named Ishmael, you have only the word of the person that captured him that he was a threat i.e. holding a gun or witnessed fighting the coalition forces but let us assume he is a high ranking official because those people get caught doing all wet work in the field all the time don’t they? In fact it is practically unheard of for a mastermind to be anything other than a suspected mastermind i.e. suspected of plotting this or that and the authority suspecting him is the one seeking the information from him. So given all that when he says he knows nothing and you are sure he knows something, when will you be satisfied he has given all the facts? Not just told you things to avoid the torture or mislead you to waste your time but has given you the truth. You need this thing called corroboration therefore there is never one man that holds the key. You’d have to torture at least two people unconnected from one another and for them to give the same story to be sure you had the truth; not a cover story. Therefore torture isn’t used to save the world it has only been used in the past to build cases against the accused. Why were people asked questions about 911 whilst being waterboarded if it wasn’t being used to gather evidence to prosecute a case? Good luck prosecuting anyone with that stuff. As I’ve said before these people are in limbo because some of the evidence against them was obtained through torture and now to have a successful prosecution the government either has to prove waterboarding and other methods used isn’t torture under the definitions in ‘The Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ or it has to separate out the mess of evidence (not derived from torture) to establish if there is enough evidence to prosecute each case one by one.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 8:11:58 AM)
I have given a lot of thought to the 24 style "ticking bomb" scenario and this is what I've come up with: If there is a ticking bomb and you have the bomber in custody, that is an extrodinary circumstance and you throw the rule book out the window. You then expect to have the actions you take reviewed, critisized and perhaps even prosocuted. In short, at that point, a person knows there is risk to his actions. Even so, I highly doubt that anyone who finds a ticking time bomb before it goes off is going to end up imprisioned no matter what means he uses to find it. The problem with a sanctioned program of torture is that there is no review, there are no questions and there is no risk to those carrying it out. They are following orders by torturing those from who they want information. More than that, they are following proceedure. Then, you don't just apply those methods to the extraordinary cases where one is sure they have the right person and the threat is imminant. You get those methods applied to any schmuck unlucky enough to get caught up in the system. In short, once torture becomes policy, it becomes safer for the interrigators to torture than not to torture. There are some times when the circumstances call for opperating outside of the rules. This does not mean that making those actions the rule is necessarily a good idea.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 8:25:23 AM)
If you know you have the man who planted the bomb in custody how do you know this? The only way you would know he knew where it was for sure was if you saw him plant it. Otherwise he is just one cog in a machine perhaps he built the bomb and was traced from the people selling the parts but that does not then go to say he knows where it is now. 99 times out of 100 the case will not be this clear cut anyway. Talking of these unrealistic saving the world scenarios, even entertaining the thought, is taking away from the injustice that is currently going on. In any case a nation that throws out the rule book to survive isn't one worth saving, why would anyone favour such a nation over a movement that was honest enough to say it wants to win at all costs?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 8:36:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 In any case a nation that throws out the rule book to survive isn't one worth saving, why would anyone favour such a nation over a movement that was honest enough to say it wants to win at all costs? I think there is a difference between a nation throwing out the rulebook and the guy on the spot making a decision that needs to be made. I was speaking of a one in a million occurance having a one in a million response. In general, the other 999,999 cases, torture is neither called for nor necessary. And my point is, better to have to throw out the rulebook when a specific, remarkable circumstance arises than to make it a policy that is carried out in general.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 8:57:20 AM)
No rules make a society, without such rules we are no different from the terrorists (these rules can't be subject to personal interpretation to get a job done). Believe me that who you see as right or wrong/good or evil is very subjective; if you lived in Iraq you might think the west were the terrorists. All you have to prove you are dealing with people fairly is the rule book otherwise anyone can claim people do things for emotional retribution that has nothing to do with a legal process or for a greater good. i.e. if you can demonstrate every stage of custody from arrest to possible release then you wouldn't have so many people suspicious of the motives of the interrogators and you may get more innocent people volunteering information. If however you hear stories then are you as an individual going to come forward if you know something, no not if you fear you'd get lost in the system or that the rules were open to personal interpretation in extreme circumstances. The real problem here is people in the west respect the western justice systems because it has due process and a set of rules as to what is an isn't acceptable but do we show this fine example of ourselves in other parts of the world during our various wars? We have become so indistinguishable to them based on the things people representing the west say we should allow or the things we have allowed others to do on our behalf. We should be able to demonstrate every human being regardless of the level of suspicion will be treated as a human being and anything else is just plain wrong regardless of the justification for it. Someone’s one in a million judgement is someone else’s one in ten judgement so how do you sanction when someone is allowed to do something illegal?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 9:26:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: Someone’s one in a million judgement is someone else’s one in ten judgement so how do you sanction when someone is allowed to do something illegal? You don't sanction it. You prosocute it. An advocate of the person making the decision to act that way defends it. And an appointed judge and/or jury makes a determination of law and justice. That is the way our system works. Personally, I don't think the sitution will come up often. I was merely trying to answer the "tickign bomb" question which is likely to reamain hypothetical for a very long time except on 24.

luckydawg -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 9:29:32 AM)
Which is of course why FDR was tried in abstentia, and considered a horrible evil man....

FirmhandKY -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 4:54:41 PM)
lucky, did you see any "ticking time bomb" example in the OP's referenced article? I didn't, but sometimes I'm just blind to stuff that other people see. Firm

Politesub53 -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 6:16:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Sometimes we have lots of questions, without a lot of good answers. Here is an article that asks a few about the ever contentious torture issue. Richard Cohen: Washinton Post Either torture is legal or it is not. The US decided to make it illegal so there should be no exceptions. Here is another thought provoking article on torture from the same publication. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/09/03/ST2009090302953.html?sid=ST2009090302953

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 7:59:46 PM)
Thanks for the constructive contribution, Polite. Quite honestly though, when we are are discussing the guy who plotted hijacking aircraft full of innocents, and turning them into weapons, I frankly don't give a shit about his long-term psychological health.

DomKen -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 9:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY lucky, did you see any "ticking time bomb" example in the OP's referenced article? I didn't, but sometimes I'm just blind to stuff that other people see. Firm Yes. you are. quote: Ah yes, the interrogator must build rapport with the captured terrorist. That might work, but it would take time. It could take a lot of time. Building rapport is clearly the preferred method, but the terrorist is going to know all about it. He will bide his time. How much time do we have?

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/4/2009 11:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY lucky, did you see any "ticking time bomb" example in the OP's referenced article? I didn't, but sometimes I'm just blind to stuff that other people see. Firm Yes. you are. quote: How much time do we have? I don't see a ticking time bomb here, Ken. Maybe metaphorically, say, to the 50-ish guy who eats bacon-cheeseburgers for lunch everyday. and how much time 'til his heart-attack. I'm not looking at whether torture is about hurting someone until he tells us "SOMETHING!, Right Fucking Now!, as much as it's about creating a psychosis where they are happy as hell to tell us what we wanna know. Is torture, "torture!," or is it an important tool in creating a desired psychological result? Please, don't try to make this, "torture is good/bad." This is "torture is bad"/"torture is the single most important ethical absolute, ever!" The ticking time bomb is rare, and actual torture should be even rarer, but I'm completely ok with interrogation recipients not being quite so confidant of what we might do if they don't co-operate with the "good cop." Sometimes, knowing exactly what can, and cannot happen, is a bad thing.

DomKen -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/5/2009 12:16:05 AM)
Torture is always wrong. I don't care about whether anyone thinks its good or bad. The fact is that torture makes intelligence gathering much more difficult. Take the cases in question these guys were waterboarded dozens of times with no actionable intelligence generated. NONE. In the period in question Al Qaeda was involved in, at least, the Madrid train and the Bali nightclub bombings. We had two of the top leaders of Al Qaeda in custody and we tortured them for months and we didn't get enough information to stop either attack. We didn't get enough information to break up the system Al Qaeda uses to distribute money to its cells or to its allies. In short we didn't get shit. What we definitely got was a bunch of lies told to stop the torture. It's really quite simple if you're being tortured tell them anything. They have to stop and investigate your claim so they can verify that you have broken or not. This is clearly what these guys did and it got us nowhere. OTOH it has been demonstrated that subtle methods of interrogation do yield useful results with high degrees of veracity. So torture is a waste of time beyond being something beneath the ideals of this nation.

popeye1250 -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/5/2009 1:01:49 AM)
Agreed, it really dosn't do any good to "hold" or torture these savages. We should be executing them as spies under the Geneva Accords. These aren't "legal" actions they're "military" actions.

Politesub53 -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/5/2009 2:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Thanks for the constructive contribution, Polite. Quite honestly though, when we are are discussing the guy who plotted hijacking aircraft full of innocents, and turning them into weapons, I frankly don't give a shit about his long-term psychological health. I dont give a shit about him either, I am fully okay with terrorists receiving the death penalty if found guilty. What I am concerned about is civillised societies following the rules they set themselves, which is why my answer was so short. I also didnt think we were discussing any particular guy, but an imaginary scenario as per Firms link, so nice work making the leap. Im not convinced evidence obtained by torture is indeed the truth. There is a case that interrogators just get told what they want to hear, or innocent people admit to anything to get the torture to stop.

TheHeretic -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/5/2009 9:07:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I also didnt think we were discussing any particular guy, but an imaginary scenario as per Firms link, so nice work making the leap. ??? The guy I'm talking about is specifically mention in the OP link, Polite. The thing is, when we start talking about poor terrorist "X" who was waterboarded 183 times, we aren't talking about some random jerk-off who was captured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That was a particular guy; Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who planned 9/11. That's an important fact that is left out of way too much discussion of the subject.

luckydawg -> RE: Getting into the grey (9/5/2009 9:42:46 AM)
It's not being left out at all, it's an intentional debate tactic. And the article is not a ticking time bomb argument. It is an argument based on making sure that detainees know there is no bad cop consequences, and what that means for interogations. Very intersting article Kirata, thanks for posting it. Domken were there any paticular pages out of the hundreds you link to, that you wanted to be considered? Or is that just a use of the "dump pile" debate tactic?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875