Bush White House still Actively Championing Torture

[jeff]

Inquartata demands evidence, Philistine produces a reference that is about as authoritative as one can imagine, and Inquartata airily dismisses. Why am I not surprised by this sequence (demand evidence, receive it, claim it's not good enough). I think I've seen this movie before.

If that's a not good enough reference, what would satisfy Inq?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by jeff

If that's a not good enough reference, what would satisfy Inq?

I think that we need other "coercion" to get Inquartata to state his true intent.

Inq: "Vee haf vays off makink you talk!"

Rack 'em up, we'll get the truth out of him. Now this is a definitive complilation on the subject of torture, so try to be truthful please.

• "Hmmmm, nipples twisted with pliers." Does this make you want to tell the truth or lie?
  
• OK, nads and a 12 volt battery - How effective on a scale of 1-10?
  
• Next, remove fingernails - Hmmmm, subject would not stop crying long enough to get answer.
  
• Hot branding irons? Poke eyes out? Break every finger? Wow, this is going to take a while if you keep moaning like that!!!!

Ahem....ummmm torture is not laughing matter.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

Inquartata demands evidence, Philistine produces a reference that is about as authoritative as one can imagine, and Inquartata airily dismisses. Why am I not surprised by this sequence (demand evidence, receive it, claim it's not good enough). I think I've seen this movie before.

If that's a not good enough reference, what would satisfy Inq?

"That he's mad, 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity,And pity 'tis 'tis true."
-from Hamlet

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I think that we need other "coercion" to get Inquartata to state his true intent.

Inq: "Vee haf vays off makink you talk!"

Rack 'em up, we'll get the truth out of him. Now this is a definitive complilation on the subject of torture, so try to be truthful please.

• "Hmmmm, nipples twisted with pliers." Does this make you want to tell the truth or lie?
  
• OK, nads and a 12 volt battery - How effective on a scale of 1-10?
  
• Next, remove fingernails - Hmmmm, subject would not stop crying long enough to get answer.
  
• Hot branding irons? Poke eyes out? Break every finger? Wow, this is going to take a while if you keep moaning like that!!!!

Ahem....ummmm torture is not laughing matter.

Minstrel: [singing] Bravely bold Sir Robin, brough forth from Camelot. He was not afraid to die, oh brave Sir Robin. He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways, brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin. He was not in the least bit scared to being mashed into a pulp, or to have his eyes carved out, and his elbows broken. To have his knee cut split, and his body burned away, and his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin. His head smashed in and heart cut out, and his liver removed, and his bowels unplugged, and his nostrils ripped and his bottom burned off and his penis...


Sir Robin: THAT'S, that's quite enough, Minstrel.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

No, but for violent methods to be used, methods that go against some of our basic morals as a country, the results should be very, very accurate. So accurate that it's obvious that it's the only way to get information.

I've already ceded the moral argument; we're only talking practical aspects. In that respect, I think all of the objections to torture look very flimsy. That's all I am saying.

I think that suicide bombers would, on average, be more likely to be resiliant to such tactics.

And more resistant still to the "Tell us or we'll ask you some more times" methods which are the alternative, no?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

It's possible, I suppose. But don't you often castigate those who dismiss such official pronouncements with a similar airy wave of the hand?

I don't see the parallel.

The military and especially it's legal and ethical policymakers have been influenced by the values and mores of the society in which they exist, no? They've been exposed to the same sort of thinking which informs the views on torture which prevail in society at large. And of course they are quite aware of the need all bodies which wield power have to CYA. It just strikes me that those are more likely to be the reasons behind the policy than any real empirical studies on the subject. ( And after all, how would they know torture is ineffectual unless they had tried it extensively? Is the military really admitting to having done that? )

I suspect that there was just a feeling that in a free and moral society it's best to forego anything which might get you in hot water with the people. But you can't really give that out as your reason without seeming cyncical and perhaps leading some to believe the policy had a "nudge nudge wink wink" attached. So what the hell, we'll say what everyone already believes: that it doesn't work and isn't useful...

Your sole argument as to the effectiveness of torture seems to be along the lines of "people have always done it, so it must be effective."

Nope. My argument is that it continues to be used because it works, not the other way 'round...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Inquartata demands evidence, Philistine produces a reference that is about as authoritative as one can imagine,

My concern is that it's an argumentum ad verecundiam. Have you any evidence to show that the opinion is based on fact? Does the manual back up its mere assertion with any references?

Yeah. Really "authoritative", that.

and Inquartata airily dismisses.

No one does airy dismissal quite as well as you, Jeff. Perhaps you hadn't noticed?

If that's a not good enough reference, what would satisfy Inq?

How about, oh, a statement backed up by verifiable experience, as rom someone who had done actual torture, rather than by the DoD's ethics writers?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My concern is that it's an argumentum ad verecundiam. Have you any evidence to show that the opinion is based on fact? Does the manual back up its mere assertion with any references?

Yeah. Really "authoritative", that.

Your argument seems to be that it fell off the turnip truck rather than being produced by the US military.

Originally Posted by Inq

No one does airy dismissal quite as well as you, Jeff. Perhaps you hadn't noticed?

Do tell. Only of vacuous arguments. Dismissing them is all they deserve. Funny thing: you're the only person with this problem.

Originally Posted by Inq

How about, oh, a statement backed up by verifiable experience, as rom someone who had done actual torture, rather than by the DoD's ethics writers?

Should any be made available, I'm sure you'll find a way to claim it's meaningless, probably by reiterating that it's merely an appeal to authority

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Nope. My argument is that it continues to be used because it works, not the other way 'round...

I believe that it continues to be used because humans in horrific and frightend situations sometimes lash out in frustration against anyone and anything they can so they will feel some sense of control over their terrible existance. The soldiers there are scared out of their minds and are reacting with the inhumane treatment of the prisoners who represent to them some of that fear because they can. Unchecked by supervision and leadership, this behavior weakens their resolve and ability to comprehend the enormity of their crimes.

[Epee_Pox]

An extraordinarily successful method of interrogation is sleep deprivation. Put someone in a room with no windows or clocks, and feed them at unpredictable intervals. Monitor them. Every time they fall asleep, wait about a quarter of an hour, then wake them up with a cheerful breakfast. If necessary, drugs can be used to induce sleepiness and wakefulness. Never ask a single question. Expose them to a "good guy" who is mildly sympathetic and slightly put off by the sad necessity of captivity. Keep doing this for three days, and then have your "good guy" ask your questions politely and gently. Your subject will talk. Don't even need to use sodium pentothal. (But then stop, or else the subject can die from lack of sleep). Very cheap, and there is no way to train oneself to withstand such treatment.

There are a few other tried-and-true methods that involve no physical pain or duress, but are very effective even against well-trained subjects. Torture is unnecessary to crack someone. And at least in the intelligence community the presumption is that if you're captured, then you're talking.

Just for the trivia, does anyone know which country is considered to have the most ruthless and effective torturers? Anybody? No? It's France. Every technique the Vietnamese used, for example, was taught to them by the French before they left.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I don't see the parallel.
{snip}
I suspect that there was just a feeling that in a free and moral society it's best to forego anything which might get you in hot water with the people. But you can't really give that out as your reason without seeming cyncical and perhaps leading some to believe the policy had a "nudge nudge wink wink" attached. So what the hell, we'll say what everyone already believes: that it doesn't work and isn't useful...

This just seems to me to be the same type of argument you resisted on the various "Bush lied" threads--taking into account outside motivations and considerations to modify what was actually said.

YMMV.

Nope. My argument is that it continues to be used because it works, not the other way 'round...

Your statement was "If in fact it was an unproductive practice, why would it continue to be employed?"

Assuming your argument actually is, it continues to be employed because it works--where is your evidence for this bromide?

Did you read the article I linked to? The author (there and otherwise) has made a study of the effectiveness of torture. You could make the same argument that it is consciously or unconsciously shaded by moral considerations--but do you have any countervailing evidence or studies?

--Philistine

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Just for the trivia, does anyone know which country is considered to have the most ruthless and effective torturers? Anybody? No? It's France. Every technique the Vietnamese used, for example, was taught to them by the French before they left.

That's very interesting. A country without the death penalty is the best in torture. Understandable, though, with France's terrorism problem.

[Soldier]

First, there are no guaranteed methods of information extraction. Sleep deprivation simply won't work on some people. Some people are immune to sodium pentathol. Some people have had countless hours of practice at sleep deprivation (AF CROs go a week without sleep during their training), and so will take a long time to even be bothered by it. So you can't just say "there's guaranteed ways to get information, you'll never need anything else."

Second, I would say that torture does work. My source? The victims themselves. Talking to veterans, many pilots, who were captured in Vietnam. They are to this day ashamed of the information they revealed. Yet they did give the enemy valuable, accurate information. Why?

Because they were being tortured. And they knew that if the information they gave didn't check out, the torture would continue, and only get worse.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Your argument seems to be that it fell off the turnip truck rather than being produced by the US military.

No, it's that a pronouncement need not be taken as gospel because of its source alone. Otherwise perhaps you would be less quick to question certain other authorities, and to assume that they might be saying what would convince rather than what they believed...

I am not so sure that the phantom of political correctness is not stalking the Pentagon as freely as it is the White House and Capitol Hill. Apotropaic policy statements are nothing new to government or bureaucracies.

Do tell. Only of vacuous arguments. Dismissing them is all they deserve. Funny thing: you're the only person with this problem.

If only you were as quick to police your own logical house as you are mine. But then, as a logical policeman you make Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes, so I guess I need not put much stock in your judgements.

Should any be made available, I'm sure you'll find a way to claim it's meaningless, probably by reiterating that it's merely an appeal to authority

Ah, the preemptive swipe...

And those grapes were probably sour, anyway.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I believe that it continues to be used because humans in horrific and frightend situations sometimes lash out in frustration against anyone and anything they can so they will feel some sense of control over their terrible existance.

Well---but we aren't talking only about its employment by ragtag guerrilla bands, terrorist cells and drug cartels, but by dispassionate, highly trained and disciplined agents of states. I don't think that the Soviets or the Chinese or even the CIA felt or feel especially powerless, fearful or fraught with anomie. Torture has been and is applied with an almost clinical approach by some users, if history is to be credited. And I don't think that rational agents continue to use methodologies that are proven failures...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

This just seems to me to be the same type of argument you resisted on the various "Bush lied" threads--taking into account outside motivations and considerations to modify what was actually said.

How so?

Your statement was "If in fact it was an unproductive practice, why would it continue to be employed?"

That's the same thing, framed as a question. Said more simply, it's productive, so it continues to be employed. If it was ineffective, it wouldn't be employed.

Assuming your argument actually is, it continues to be employed because it works--where is your evidence for this bromide?

I'm confused. What viable alternatives can you suggest for its use, if it isn't effective? That they do it for the fun of it? A rational agent does not waste time and resources on a method which does not produce results, does it?

Again, I'm not talking about some ad hoc field expedient amature tortures or a program set up by a sadist for his own gratification, or even ones intended to instill fear in a populace. I'm talking about systematized, regularized, state-run and state-funded programs for the extraction of intelligence...

Did you read the article I linked to?

Only the initial teaser. I don't read online articles that require registration and the like; the time I have to spend on these debates is limited enough as it is.

The author (there and otherwise) has made a study of the effectiveness of torture. You could make the same argument that it is consciously or unconsciously shaded by moral considerations--but do you have any countervailing evidence or studies?

No, only logic, I'm afraid. The material may exist, but wants research, and again time is limited. Actually, I was intrigued by what I saw of the article you posted, and I was particularly interested to see what the author's experience, credentials and references were, but in the end I was not willing to jump through the hoops the site erected. You may take that as an evasion or admission of defeat, if you like; I won't be offended.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That's very interesting. A country without the death penalty is the best in torture. Understandable, though, with France's terrorism problem.

As much as I like to rag on France I'm not sure that's a fair charge. France today is not the France of Indochina, after all, any more than the Spain today is the Spain of the Inquisition.

The way I hear it, the Egyptian Mubahath el-Dawla is the most feared with regard to torture. It appears to be a common tactic in many countries to convince subjects that they are to be "interrogated" by or turned over to the Egyptians; in some cases it has been enough to dress someone up in an Egyptian uniform and have him walk past an interviewee's door. One does not hear these stories of the French.

And after all Egypt is the only country of which I can think to have all but crushed its own domestic terrorist movement, that ur-organization the Muslim Brotherhood...and it did it, by all accounts, using torture and summary executions...