Senate Report on CIA Torture

[Pointedstick]

I am shocked, shocked to find torture in this secret police organization!

[Mountaineer]

I am shocked, shocked to find torture in this secret police organization!

Yes indeed.  But, even if this is completely true, and completely abhorrent, I am also shocked by our illustrious leader in that he continues to tell (or allow others to tell) everyone the US is a mess and unexceptional - he seems to revel in airing dirty laundry, that is, all dirty laundry that is not his or that he thinks he can use for potential political advantage.  Somehow, I expect this revelation (of methods that likely all other "states" use, and possibly in worse ways than we do ... e.g. NK, ISIS) will come back to bite us in a big way.  It is basically another undermining of what little trust there is in our government by our citizens and our world allies.

... Mountaineer

[stuper1]

You ought to be shocked that our former illustrious leader, George Bush, allowed torture to happen on his watch, and he ought to be ashamed.  We are supposed to be the good guys.  There is never any excuse for an official state-sponsored torture program.  That's supposed to be stuff for the bad guys.  It's not only wrong, going against everything we ought to stand for, but it's not even effective.

Airing the dirty laundry is the only way to get it clean.

If Obama were as bad as some of you seem to think, he would allow prosecutions to go forward.  He's not doing so.

[dualstow]

1. This was a report issued by the Senate in their oversight role.  I'm glad it was issued.

Me too. There's going to be a backlash and the senate knows that, but it would be a big step backwards if the report were not released.

[Benko]

What is the benefit of having this pubished?

[Benko]

From Brit Hume:

""Remember this document, yes, it is officially because the democrats have the majority of the committee, a committee report, but all the Republicans declined to participate in this. the players who are the ones responsible for this program were not, not any of them, interviewed by the committee

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... -UVA-Story

Aside from the fact that it fits the preconcieved notions of this board, why do any of you believe it is accurate?

[Pointedstick]

What is the benefit of having this pubished?

I would say that it gets us ever so slightly to being back on the path of a modern, enlightened free country. Respectable governments admit their mistakes. Totalitarian ones try to bury them.

[Benko]

What is the benefit of having this pubished?

I would say that it gets us ever so slightly to being back on the path of a modern, enlightened free country. Respectable governments admit their mistakes. Totalitarian ones try to bury them.

So it is a mistake because torture is always wrong?

Would it be wrong it if gave us valuable intel?  Oh yes, torture never works.  I know.  And gun control saves lives.  Etc.

[Pointedstick]

So it is a mistake because torture is always wrong?

Would it be wrong it if gave us valuable intel?  Oh yes, torture never works.  I know.  And gun control saves lives.  Etc.

Yes, torture is always wrong. And according to the report, it didn't give us valuable intel. I know that for some people it may be comforting to imagine that torture could be used as a last resort in a ticking-time-bomb scenario, but the truth is that such scenarios almost never happen and torture has never been used to reliably get valuable information out of anyone. Its purpose is to break a person, not extract usable information from them. Permitting governments to torture people is an extremely dangerous slippery slope. I for one am glad that ours is taking steps to back away from that slope by acknowledging its heinous actions, which is the first step in behavioral change.

[moda0306]

I think this subject of torture is really two subjects tied into one.

1) What is the burden of proof in different scenarios of establishing guilt for a crime or wrong-doing?  Is it different for grand theft auto vs carrying bomb supplies in Afghanistan? 

2) Once that guilt is established under the said burden of proof, for any given type of wrong-doing, what can the government do to you to extract information about other wrong-doing?


A few problems that I see with how people are debating this:

A) They are pre-supposing the guilt of the alleged wrong-doer when determining whether they 1) should be detained without trial, and 2) should be punished using torture.

B) It seems much of what they are trying to protect is not any sort of specific torture to get specific information, but essentially people essentially exacting vengeful punishment. 


I have no doubts that IF there is a bomb about to go off in Manhattan, AND some dude knows what is happening, AND some CIA agent catches him, that said CIA agent will Jack Bauer his ass no matter the law.  And part of me is ok with that.  But that isn't anything close to what we have here.

What we have here is a VERY weak burden of proof required by government followed by some very extreme torture/abuse methods (compared to what we would ever consider moral in our criminal justice sysetm), with VERY little evidence of reliable information coming out of the back end of it.

So we are torturing people we have barely established guilt for, and for little reliable benefit.

[Benko]

Torture as punishment or breaking a person is wrong.

Ticking bomb scenarios don't happen in real life (or don't happen often enough to warrent discussion).

Torture should not be used except rarely and under the most extreme examples e.g. genuine nuc, dirty bomb, where there is potential for loss of life in the hundreds if not thousands.  You gotta have some rules, these would be the arbitrary ones I'd pick (subject to better criteria being suggested). 

"according to the report, it didn't give us valuable intel"
You didn't answer the question as to why you believe the report given what I wrote above. Expecting democrats to publish accurate information on anything related to violence e.g. gun controll is unlikely.

"the truth is that torture has never been used to reliably get valuable information out of anyone"
THere are a lot of people who woudl disagree with you.  There is a whole spectrum of people some who would never break or you could never be certain of breaking to those who you could get info out of just from making them mildly uncomfortable.  People are not all the same and to deny this spectrum exists is to deny the obvious.  How far along the spetrum of people and to what lengths you are willing to go are legitimate questions.  Where does torture start?  SLeep deprivation?  Bright lights?  Rap music?  Waterboarding, etc.  Which is OK and which over the dividing line?

Moda,

1) What is the burden of proof in different scenarios of establishing guilt for a crime or wrong-doing?  Is it different for grand theft auto vs carrying bomb supplies in Afghanistan?

Being convicted of anything is the same and unchanged and unrelated to the current discussion.  IF AND ONLY IF the stakes are high enough, and innocent but sympathetic janitor who might have info which would save lots of lives is fair game (if there are no other options).

Trying to make black and white rules which work in every real life situation is problematic.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with moda. Even if you make it totally illegal (enforced of course), in a truly dire, insane, movie-plot situation, they'd never be able to find a jury to convict someone who tortured a suspect and actually got actionable information that saved millions.

[clacy]

I'm glad I don't have to do it, but I won't lose too much sleep over any of these terrorists being tortured.  Radical Islam picked this fight.  We need to remember that.

[stone]

I'm glad I don't have to do it, but I won't lose too much sleep over any of these terrorists being tortured.  Radical Islam picked this fight.  We need to remember that.

Do you want to win though? If you do then you need the strength to withstand the impulse to mindlessly kick back in a way that simply fuels further terrorism. Like the quote from TennPaGa says, torture is just a way for us to kid ourselves that we are putting our all into the struggle. Actually winning will take getting more people on our side and torture is a sure way to do the opposite.

Another apt quote:

https://curiousleftist.wordpress.com/20 ... r-torture/

This paragraph from Lt. Col. Douglas A. Pryer sums up the problem well:

The question of “does it work”? aside, there are HUGE strategic drawbacks to torture, such as how it undermines the rule of law, corrupts those who use it, undercuts military training, cedes moral high ground to our nation’s enemies, creates distrust among allies, sows dissension at home, serves as a source of recruits and donations for our nation’s enemies, creates irreconcilable enemies, and makes the ultimate goal of any conflict—its peaceful resolution—increasingly difficult./quote]

[moda0306]

I'm glad I don't have to do it, but I won't lose too much sleep over any of these alleged, unproven terrorists being tortured.  Radical Islam picked this fight.  We need to remember that.

Fixed that for ya. 

Remember, they haven't been proven of wrongdoing by anything resembling a court.

And I'm always skeptical when one person deems when one of two civilizations have "picked a fight" with the other. Usually it's far more nuanced.  Especially since radical Islam can't pick anything because it is an idea, not a conscious being.

[clacy]

I'm glad I don't have to do it, but I won't lose too much sleep over any of these terrorists being tortured.  Radical Islam picked this fight.  We need to remember that.

Do you want to win though? If you do then you need the strength to withstand the impulse to mindlessly kick back in a way that simply fuels further terrorism. Like the quote from TennPaGa says, torture is just a way for us to kid ourselves that we are putting our all into the struggle. Actually winning will take getting more people on our side and torture is a sure way to do the opposite.

No offense, but there haven't been many serious wars won, where there was no torture involved in intel gathering.  I'll leave that to the experts, and not take your word for it.

[clacy]

I'm glad I don't have to do it, but I won't lose too much sleep over any of these alleged, unproven terrorists being tortured.  Radical Islam picked this fight.  We need to remember that.

Fixed that for ya. 

Remember, they haven't been proven of wrongdoing by anything resembling a court.

And I'm always skeptical when one person deems when one of two civilizations have "picked a fight" with the other. Usually it's far more nuanced.  Especially since radical Islam can't pick anything because it is an idea, not a conscious being.

The world is nuanced, but we all have to make judgements, and in this case, I'm fine with deeming radical Islam as the aggressor. 

Obviously when I say "radical Islam" I'm talking about the Islamic terrorists that invoke Islam as their reasoning for virtually everything.  I'm pretty sure they are conscious beings.

[moda0306]

Clancy,

But you still have yet to prove the tortured prisoners are radical Muslims. This is a pretty pertinent gap in the logic.

[clacy]

Clancy,

But you still have yet to prove the tortured prisoners are radical Muslims. This is a pretty pertinent gap in the logic.

I don't think I can help you out if you don't believe that these terrorists are radical Muslims.

[moda0306]

Clancy,

But you still have yet to prove the tortured prisoners are radical Muslims. This is a pretty pertinent gap in the logic.

I don't think I can help you out if you don't believe that these terrorists are radical Muslims.

That's a loaded comments. These people haven't been PROVEN to be terrorists.  You are assuming your conclusion.

[stone]

I'm glad I don't have to do it, but I won't lose too much sleep over any of these terrorists being tortured.  Radical Islam picked this fight.  We need to remember that.

Do you want to win though? If you do then you need the strength to withstand the impulse to mindlessly kick back in a way that simply fuels further terrorism. Like the quote from TennPaGa says, torture is just a way for us to kid ourselves that we are putting our all into the struggle. Actually winning will take getting more people on our side and torture is a sure way to do the opposite.

No offense, but there haven't been many serious wars won, where there was no torture involved in intel gathering.  I'll leave that to the experts, and not take your word for it.

That's very different from saying that the torture actually helped towards winning those wars. Your logic seems a bit like saying how no serious wars have been won without "friendly fire" accidental shootings of our own troops and so therefore we should encourage avoidable friendly fire.

Anyway, the "war" with radical Islam is very different from say beating Japan and Germany in WWII. The conflict with radical Islam can only be won by stemming the flow of new recruits to radical Islam. There is a vast as yet untapped pool of potential recruits to radical Islam. If we behave badly enough we could see a vast increase in the level of attacks.

It also seems to me weirdly disconnected to make the claim that radical Islam sprang out of nowhere due to people randomly wanting to pick a fight with the west. Their countries are full of/encircled by western military bases. They have despotic puppet rulers kept in power by us. Radical Islam hasn't picked a fight with say Japan have they? But I'm sure that if Japan had won WWII and so had an empire, then Japan would be the one suffering attacks. I'm not saying that radical Islam has ANY redeeming features; I'm just saying that it is a monster induced at least partly by us and we are in a position to either cause it to snowball or fizzle out.

[Mountaineer]

I wonder how Abe's proclamation would be received today?

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... s/fast.htm

... Mountaineer

[clacy]

Do you want to win though? If you do then you need the strength to withstand the impulse to mindlessly kick back in a way that simply fuels further terrorism. Like the quote from TennPaGa says, torture is just a way for us to kid ourselves that we are putting our all into the struggle. Actually winning will take getting more people on our side and torture is a sure way to do the opposite.

No offense, but there haven't been many serious wars won, where there was no torture involved in intel gathering.  I'll leave that to the experts, and not take your word for it.

That's very different from saying that the torture actually helped towards winning those wars. Your logic seems a bit like saying how no serious wars have been won without "friendly fire" accidental shootings of our own troops and so therefore we should encourage avoidable friendly fire.

Anyway, the "war" with radical Islam is very different from say beating Japan and Germany in WWII. The conflict with radical Islam can only be won by stemming the flow of new recruits to radical Islam. There is a vast as yet untapped pool of potential recruits to radical Islam. If we behave badly enough we could see a vast increase in the level of attacks.

It also seems to me weirdly disconnected to make the claim that radical Islam sprang out of nowhere due to people randomly wanting to pick a fight with the west. Their countries are full of/encircled by western military bases. They have despotic puppet rulers kept in power by us. Radical Islam hasn't picked a fight with say Japan have they? But I'm sure that if Japan had won WWII and so had an empire, then Japan would be the one suffering attacks. I'm not saying that radical Islam has ANY redeeming features; I'm just saying that it is a monster induced at least partly by us and we are in a position to either cause it to snowball or fizzle out.

You can't prove that wars haven't been won because of intel from torture.  It's awfully easy in hindsight, AFTER another 911 DIDN'T happen, to say we should have been nicer to the terrorist.

Also, you can blame radical Islam on the US or foreign involvement in the region, but you also have to consider that radical Islamists have killed FAR mroe Muslims than foreign armies have.

[Mountaineer]

I wonder how Abe's proclamation would be received today?

Poorly.  I expect there would be many responses like this one:

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that dear leader has "asked" (but of course, we all know this is an order... after all dear leader knows best) the U.S. to confess its sins a to a higher power.  Once again, he is broadcasting to the world that the U.S. is weak and unexceptional.  Sins?  What sins?  The so-called "torture"?  So a few people's heads got pushed into toilets.  Sounds like a fraternity prank to me.  Anyway, we all know they deserved it. 

But, more importantly, doesn't he know our enemy preys on weakness? Doesn't he know that he is undermining our allies' trust in us? He and people like him clearly would like nothing more than to destroy this country.  The sooner this treason is recognized, the better off we'll all be.

To me, there is an enormous difference between repenting and confessing sins to an acknowledged and proclaimed Almighty God, and confessing sins (even if we could today gin up courage in our moral turpitude to call them sins against God and man) to your enemies.  One deals with the kingdom of God and the other the kingdom of fallen man.  We should never conflate the two and the appropriate roles for each, especially when one of those hearing the proclaimed weakness is a sworn ememy of those who believe in the Almighty God.  Can you imagine Moses telling Pharaoh the Israelites were going to bow down to Pharaoh and ask for forgiveness instead repenting to the only real God and asking for mercy?  The tone and substance of Lincoln's proclamation is nothing like what our government oversight committee did.  Just my opinion.

... Mountaineer

[clacy]

Anyway, the "war" with radical Islam is very different from say beating Japan and Germany in WWII. The conflict with radical Islam can only be won by stemming the flow of new recruits to radical Islam. There is a vast as yet untapped pool of potential recruits to radical Islam. If we behave badly enough we could see a vast increase in the level of attacks.

It also seems to me weirdly disconnected to make the claim that radical Islam sprang out of nowhere due to people randomly wanting to pick a fight with the west. Their countries are full of/encircled by western military bases. They have despotic puppet rulers kept in power by us. Radical Islam hasn't picked a fight with say Japan have they? But I'm sure that if Japan had won WWII and so had an empire, then Japan would be the one suffering attacks. I'm not saying that radical Islam has ANY redeeming features; I'm just saying that it is a monster induced at least partly by us and we are in a position to either cause it to snowball or fizzle out.

We have no ability to stop the flow of incoming recruits to the radical ideologies.  Only Islam itself, can purge these factions from its religion.  I tend to think the religion is so fundamentally flawed, that this won't be possible in my lifetime.

I do however believe that it's our government's responsibility to protect its citizens by using aggressive intel measures to play defense, and minimize radical Islam's affect.  Essentially, make it very hard for Islamic terrorists to do business and kill people.