I'm not posting this in the Debate forum because I'm not sure I can think up a debate to frame it, I just think people should know about it.
Basically there's been a release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's review of the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques program, which has previously been called an illegal torture program.
Quote from The Release »
1. The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.
2. The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.
3. The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.
4. The CIA program was far more brutal than the CIA represented to policymakers and the American public.
I'm not sure anyone is particularly surprised by any of those revelations. The USA should not be in the business of torture. It's incredibly effective... at getting people to say what they think you want them to say, not at actually getting the truth.
Yeah that's why I put this in watercooler. I'm honestly shocked that anyone still thinks torture/enhanced interrogation is possibly a good idea for anything other than causing suffering, and I'd be particularly shocked if anyone on this forum came out in support of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I always try to separate the arguments that torture is wrong from the arguments that it's ineffective. Otherwise, if somebody can show that it's effective under certain circumstances (and they probably can; it'd be a huge generalization to say that it never works) then they have a ready-made argument that it's sometimes justified. And it... isn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, people will always bring up the ticking time bomb scenario. But even then, there's no guarantee that it will work.
There are no guarantees about anything in this world, especially not in the business we're talking about. It's certainly not like humane interrogation methods always work either. The question is: can torture work? And the answer is: I don't care, it's wrong even if it does.
REading the comments in foruyms and various news sites make we want to cringe.
A huge chunk of people are stilling defending torture as a legitimate source of information, despite this CiA release. Toss in a few "thanks obama for putting american lives in danger!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
REading the comments in foruyms and various news sites make we want to cringe.
A huge chunk of people are stilling defending torture as a legitimate source of information, despite this CiA release. Toss in a few "thanks obama for putting american lives in danger!"
The really depressing thing is that the republicans in Congress are doing that.
A huge chunk of people are stilling defending torture as a legitimate source of information, despite this CiA release.
Let's be clear: this is a release by the Senate Intelligence Committee about the CIA. The CIA is, in fact, among those continuing to defend its torture enhanced interrogation program as a legitimate source of information. (Though right now it's focusing its efforts on flatly denying the more damaging charge that it lied to Congress about said program.)
Let's also be realistic: a Senate committee finding is political by its very definition. And this Senate is controlled by Democrats and investigating a Republican program. If the Republican-controlled Senate decides to investigate, say, the Obama Administration's expanded use of drones, you can be pretty sure they're not going to be friendly, regardless of the actual merits. Now, I think the Dems happen to be correct here, but that's almost accidental. The sad truth is that Senate findings don't really have the authoritative weight we might hope - we certainly should not accept something as fact just because a Senate committee reports that it is. I'm pissed that people are defending torture, but because it's torture, not because it's contradicting the official story.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah that's why I put this in watercooler. I'm honestly shocked that anyone still thinks torture/enhanced interrogation is possibly a good idea for anything other than causing suffering, and I'd be particularly shocked if anyone on this forum came out in support of it.
Ethical grounds aside, I think I have never actually seen hard evidence that "enhanced interrogation" techniques don't work.
I do not see the reasoning behind the CIA and other international spy agencies resorting to torture if it, in fact, results in misinformation more often than correct information. Furthermore, how many actually know and have replicated the exact protocol of the CIA interrogation procedures? How can one generalize all "enhanced interrogation" into one umbrella when there are so many different techniques, often involving a variety of drugs that can alter the mental state?
The argument against the efficacy of torture, the way I see it, is propaganda. The argument cannot ever be credible due to the unknowns and gross generalization. It's well meaning propaganda against terrifying violation of human rights; but, 100% propaganda nonetheless.
The argument against the efficacy of torture, the way I see it, is propaganda. The argument cannot ever be credible due to the unknowns and gross generalization. It's well meaning propaganda against terrifying violation of human rights; but, 100% propaganda nonetheless.
Torture in general is pretty well documented to not be particularly effective. It gets people to say what they think you want to hear, at best, which may or may not be correct information.
It was really sad to turn on Fox News the day this report came out and see them spamming footage from 9/11 as some sort of sick justification. Every time I hear pundits diverting the torture argument by bringing up 9/11, or the USS Cole, or Benghazi, or just "Terrorism" in general it makes me sad that critical thinking curriculum has been systematically purged from our education structures.
The ultimate argument when it comes to things like torture or even subverting the constitution should always be: Do the ENDS justify the MEANS?
IMO, the true enemies of a free society are the ones that use phrases like "because terrorism", "protecting children" or "putting our troops at risk."
It's funny to me that the CIA has come out and said, "everything in that report is overblown, trust us." Yes no one seems to be reminding folks that the CIA destroyed as much evidence as they could concerning these techniques when they thought there could be some legal issues concerning them. Oh, and then they hacked the computer systems of the staffers putting this report together so they could monitor what they were doing. Of course this was all after they tried to stall or stifle the transfer of records to the oversight committee. Yet the CIA (and their defenders) just want us to "trust" them...
I think what is bothering me most is the people, like Hannity, who resort to a tu quoque of "So, torture is wrong but it's okay for Obama to order drone strikes?!". It does nothing to strengthen their arguments and just makes them look like a bunch of children fighting on a playground, "Oh yeah, but you did bad things too!". Both actions can be equally despicable.
I think the first question to ask would be if torture is ever justifiable. For example... if torturing one guy could have prevented 9/11... would that have made it justifiable to do?
If the answer is yes then there is a whole number of considerations to discuss from what kind of torture to what sort of event is possibly being prevented.
If the answer to that question is no. Then there can be a debate about what is the difference between torture to save lives versus killing to save lives (we do this all the time in war, police etc...)
I think what is bothering me most is the people, like Hannity, who resort to a tu quoque of "So, torture is wrong but it's okay for Obama to order drone strikes?!". It does nothing to strengthen their arguments and just makes them look like a bunch of children fighting on a playground, "Oh yeah, but you did bad things too!". Both actions can be equally despicable.
This is why I prefer listening to libertarians like Andrew Napolitano who condemn both torture and drone strikes from a non-partisan point of view.
Though I will say this: as much as I completely detest neo-cons like Sean Hannity, they sort of bring up a point when it has come to the red team/blue team charade: if a Republican was in office doing drone strikes the streets would be filled to the brim with protestors everywhere. But since a Democrat is in office doing it, there isn't that much backlash because it's ok when "our guy" is the one doing it.
I think what is bothering me most is the people, like Hannity, who resort to a tu quoque of "So, torture is wrong but it's okay for Obama to order drone strikes?!". It does nothing to strengthen their arguments and just makes them look like a bunch of children fighting on a playground, "Oh yeah, but you did bad things too!". Both actions can be equally despicable.
This is why I prefer listening to libertarians like Andrew Napolitano who condemn both torture and drone strikes from a non-partisan point of view.
Though I will say this: as much as I completely detest neo-cons like Sean Hannity, they sort of bring up a point when it has come to the red team/blue team charade: if a Republican was in office doing drone strikes the streets would be filled to the brim with protestors everywhere. But since a Democrat is in office doing it, there isn't that much backlash because it's ok when "our guy" is the one doing it.
I have to admit, I've been watching way too much fox news lately. I do not want contribute to their ratings but I find the general hypocrisy so entertaining that it keeps me glued to the TV, similar to not being able to pull your eyes away from a car wreck. You are correct though, the hypocrisy is apparent on both sides. It's why I believe the two party system to be an utter farce, only helping to impede true democracy. The problem is your average person doesn't give a ***** about politics (honestly, who can blame them). If I didn't find it all so funny I probably wouldn't care either.
The debate of torture has been settled decades ago with the Nuremberg trials. There shouldn't be any further debate now about using torture or "enhanced interrogations" which is just a cover name.
Funny part about the whole senate investigation is that the CIA already did an internal investigation (called the Panetta Review on the "enhanced interrogation" program and found exactly what the senate did. When they turned all of their documents over to the Senate Intelligence Committee they accidentally included that report in the files and that is the only reason we even know about its existence. Yet you can see a half-a-dozen folks from former to current heads of the CIA to Dick Cheney still insisting that everything is above the board.
(They even went so far as to have the DOJ criminally investigate the SSIC because they just couldn't believe that report was accidentally released and that some how it had to be a security breech. Then when the DOJ said there was no wrongdoing they started hacking the SSIC staffers themselves!)
Realistically, the ticking time bomb scenario is something of Hollywood fiction rather than something that occurs in practice in intelligence. The 9/11 attacks took 10 years to plan, from start to finish, and cost half a million dollars. The US intelligence community was aware that OBL had major attack plans as soon as 1999. An intelligence report from 1999 specifically names OBL as wanting to crash a plane filled with semtex into the WTC, Pentagon, or Sears Tower.
Group thought-out terror attacks take an inordinate amount of time, money, and planning. The ones that slip past intelligence are the lone wolf attacks that occur such as the Boston Bombings and the recent attack here in Austin where the attackers aren't tied to any terror cell or group. Neither of these can be foiled with torture and most likely the lone wolf attack can only be foiled by concerned family and friends or Big Data.
I would cut the excessive physical torture and focus mostly on the psychological aspects of torture. I believe that some of the individuals we've captured are legitimate fanatics that would be thrilled to die as martyrs. Here, you'd go for psychological torture in sprinkling the prisoners with a bit of pig's blood, thus making them "unclean" and apparently unable to enter their belief system's take on heaven during their jihad. Or we could spare them the torture and outright burn them ala Rollor Hungers.
Who cares? When you have a segment of the country that truly believes it's us vs them where us is more human than them, what's the point of discussing. If it was used on us and them people would be up in arms, but it wasn't it was used on them, so your average american doesn't care.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basically there's been a release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's review of the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques program, which has previously been called an illegal torture program.
I guess if people want to create a two sided debate they could compare general Conservative support for torture with John McCain's argument that it provides bad intelligence?
Art is life itself.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is an argument for justification, not an argument for efficacy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A huge chunk of people are stilling defending torture as a legitimate source of information, despite this CiA release. Toss in a few "thanks obama for putting american lives in danger!"
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The really depressing thing is that the republicans in Congress are doing that.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
tortureenhanced interrogation program as a legitimate source of information. (Though right now it's focusing its efforts on flatly denying the more damaging charge that it lied to Congress about said program.)Let's also be realistic: a Senate committee finding is political by its very definition. And this Senate is controlled by Democrats and investigating a Republican program. If the Republican-controlled Senate decides to investigate, say, the Obama Administration's expanded use of drones, you can be pretty sure they're not going to be friendly, regardless of the actual merits. Now, I think the Dems happen to be correct here, but that's almost accidental. The sad truth is that Senate findings don't really have the authoritative weight we might hope - we certainly should not accept something as fact just because a Senate committee reports that it is. I'm pissed that people are defending torture, but because it's torture, not because it's contradicting the official story.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I do not see the reasoning behind the CIA and other international spy agencies resorting to torture if it, in fact, results in misinformation more often than correct information. Furthermore, how many actually know and have replicated the exact protocol of the CIA interrogation procedures? How can one generalize all "enhanced interrogation" into one umbrella when there are so many different techniques, often involving a variety of drugs that can alter the mental state?
The argument against the efficacy of torture, the way I see it, is propaganda. The argument cannot ever be credible due to the unknowns and gross generalization. It's well meaning propaganda against terrifying violation of human rights; but, 100% propaganda nonetheless.
Torture in general is pretty well documented to not be particularly effective. It gets people to say what they think you want to hear, at best, which may or may not be correct information.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The ultimate argument when it comes to things like torture or even subverting the constitution should always be: Do the ENDS justify the MEANS?
IMO, the true enemies of a free society are the ones that use phrases like "because terrorism", "protecting children" or "putting our troops at risk."
It's funny to me that the CIA has come out and said, "everything in that report is overblown, trust us." Yes no one seems to be reminding folks that the CIA destroyed as much evidence as they could concerning these techniques when they thought there could be some legal issues concerning them. Oh, and then they hacked the computer systems of the staffers putting this report together so they could monitor what they were doing. Of course this was all after they tried to stall or stifle the transfer of records to the oversight committee. Yet the CIA (and their defenders) just want us to "trust" them...
If the answer is yes then there is a whole number of considerations to discuss from what kind of torture to what sort of event is possibly being prevented.
If the answer to that question is no. Then there can be a debate about what is the difference between torture to save lives versus killing to save lives (we do this all the time in war, police etc...)
This is why I prefer listening to libertarians like Andrew Napolitano who condemn both torture and drone strikes from a non-partisan point of view.
Though I will say this: as much as I completely detest neo-cons like Sean Hannity, they sort of bring up a point when it has come to the red team/blue team charade: if a Republican was in office doing drone strikes the streets would be filled to the brim with protestors everywhere. But since a Democrat is in office doing it, there isn't that much backlash because it's ok when "our guy" is the one doing it.
I have to admit, I've been watching way too much fox news lately. I do not want contribute to their ratings but I find the general hypocrisy so entertaining that it keeps me glued to the TV, similar to not being able to pull your eyes away from a car wreck. You are correct though, the hypocrisy is apparent on both sides. It's why I believe the two party system to be an utter farce, only helping to impede true democracy. The problem is your average person doesn't give a ***** about politics (honestly, who can blame them). If I didn't find it all so funny I probably wouldn't care either.
Here is a real shocker.
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/12/11/ssci-report-reveals-cia-torture-program-originated-in-same-department-as-mkultra/
(They even went so far as to have the DOJ criminally investigate the SSIC because they just couldn't believe that report was accidentally released and that some how it had to be a security breech. Then when the DOJ said there was no wrongdoing they started hacking the SSIC staffers themselves!)
Group thought-out terror attacks take an inordinate amount of time, money, and planning. The ones that slip past intelligence are the lone wolf attacks that occur such as the Boston Bombings and the recent attack here in Austin where the attackers aren't tied to any terror cell or group. Neither of these can be foiled with torture and most likely the lone wolf attack can only be foiled by concerned family and friends or Big Data.