My shitty old man is really pissing me off on this. "Torture does work, but the CIA can't admit to how effective it is because of national security reasons." I've told him he's full of shit. Then there is the whole, "we shouldn't have this discussion out in the open, it should have been done internally because it makes us look bad!" Again bullshit, of course, the easy way to avoid looking bad, would be to not do incredibly shitty stuff in the first place. Plus, there's the whole issue where the CIA fucking stonewalled everything they could, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the shitbags in Congress knew what was going on. So fuck them, let's have the discussion in the open, maybe that will muster up enough support to reign the fuckers in (I wouldn't mind burning the CIA down to the ground, firing the upper echelons of it's rank and file, and rebuilding from scratch, but sadly, I don't think there is enough interest there because the US electorate kind sucks right now).
Also getting annoyed with the whole, "it's totally political!" No, if it was political, it would be released before the elections when it's a big news story for our shitty national media with poor attention skill, same for much of the electorate. Instead it got released right after the election, given both the media and much of the public two years to forget about it. Plus, this is going to be the thing that would sink Jeb Bush in the GOP 2016 Presidential Primary or the thing that would sink him in the General 2016 US Presidential race (if he does get the nod).
My shitty old man is really pissing me off on this. "Torture does work, but the CIA can't admit to how effective it is because of national security reasons." I've told him he's full of shit. Then there is the whole, "we shouldn't have this discussion out in the open, it should have been done internally because it makes us look bad!" Again bullshit, of course, the easy way to avoid looking bad, would be to not do incredibly shitty stuff in the first place. Plus, there's the whole issue where the CIA fucking stonewalled everything they could, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the shitbags in Congress knew what was going on. So fuck them, let's have the discussion in the open, maybe that will muster up enough support to reign the fuckers in (I wouldn't mind burning the CIA down to the ground, firing the upper echelons of it's rank and file, and rebuilding from scratch, but sadly, I don't think there is enough interest there because the US electorate kind sucks right now).
Also getting annoyed with the whole, "it's totally political!" No, if it was political, it would be released before the elections when it's a big news story for our shitty national media with poor attention skill, same for much of the electorate. Instead it got released right after the election, given both the media and much of the public two years to forget about it. Plus, this is going to be the thing that would sink Jeb Bush in the GOP 2016 Presidential Primary or the thing that would sink him in the General 2016 US Presidential race (if he does get the nod).
I feel like an argument about whether or not torture is effective already gives away too much ground.
Even if it was the most effective means ever of getting information, it shouldn't be done. I'm always reminded of that Shep Smith clip where he just refused to argue about whether or not it worked, just pounded his desk and said, "No. We don't do that. We don't torture people."
My shitty old man is really pissing me off on this. "Torture does work, but the CIA can't admit to how effective it is because of national security reasons." I've told him he's full of shit. Then there is the whole, "we shouldn't have this discussion out in the open, it should have been done internally because it makes us look bad!" Again bullshit, of course, the easy way to avoid looking bad, would be to not do incredibly shitty stuff in the first place. Plus, there's the whole issue where the CIA fucking stonewalled everything they could, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the shitbags in Congress knew what was going on. So fuck them, let's have the discussion in the open, maybe that will muster up enough support to reign the fuckers in (I wouldn't mind burning the CIA down to the ground, firing the upper echelons of it's rank and file, and rebuilding from scratch, but sadly, I don't think there is enough interest there because the US electorate kind sucks right now).
Also getting annoyed with the whole, "it's totally political!" No, if it was political, it would be released before the elections when it's a big news story for our shitty national media with poor attention skill, same for much of the electorate. Instead it got released right after the election, given both the media and much of the public two years to forget about it. Plus, this is going to be the thing that would sink Jeb Bush in the GOP 2016 Presidential Primary or the thing that would sink him in the General 2016 US Presidential race (if he does get the nod).
I feel like an argument about whether or not torture is effective already gives away too much ground.
Even if it was the most effective means ever of getting information, it shouldn't be done. I'm always reminded of that Shep Smith clip where he just refused to argue about whether or not it worked, just pounded his desk and said, "No. We don't do that. We don't torture people."
Hmm, I couldn't find anything a long those specific lines, was it this one?
This brings to mind 2 things. First, I like Shepard Smith. I can't say I always agree with him but whenever I've seen him he's at least seemed reasonable and intelligent, he's the best guy on Fox News hands down. And the second thing (the more important thing) is that what Shep said in that video,
"Of course, we know what the problem is. We know what this is thought Cliff, this isn't about what's torture - what this is about is a series of dots which people are now connecting mentally in a backward fashion: If there was torture that's a crime, if there was crime there were criminals. Who ordered the torture? That's the problem, it's political, and the Right is going 'Get away from George Bush and his administration, it's over! Remember look forward? Remember look forward?' And the other sides' going ' This is torture.' I mean that's where we are isn't it? It's that simple isn't it?"
Hard to imagine that was 5 years ago. For a lot of reasons.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
While KGB and their fellow services found success with honeypots, during that period CIA found more success with offers of money and asylum. Coercion works, but not as much as monetary or ideological motivation. You can argue that people like Clayton Lonetree (victim of honeypot, first US Marine convicted of espionage) did a lot of damage, I would counter that Robert Hansen (Walk in source motivated by money) did much more damage than the majority of honeypot victims combined.
They had so much 'success' that the KGB had completely wrapped them around their fingers (again, despite the disparity in funding) to the point where Moscow stole everything from atomics weapons technology to aircraft designs from the U.S., knew where every U.S. listening station was (which makes it kind of funny to go through the archives material from the old Soviet era, where you can easily find information that the U.S. to this day still classifies as top secret) and even had enough numbers stations keys (until the CIA swapped to the one time pad model) to cheerily listen to the orders being given to CIA operatives via radio.
Sorry, but no. You guys got your asses handed to you.
I don't work for CIA so I don't have a dog in this fight, and my example was of Russian success (Robert Hansen) motivated by money.
I will readily admit CIA has its problems, and were I DCI there would be changes I would personally make that would hopefully relieve problems that CIA has today.
It also probably isnt a good idea because all the talented people in the CIA wouldnt stick arround for the restructuring and would go to the highest bidder in the private sector.
Good. If they were only in it for the opportunity to serve themselves rather than serve the public, you probably wouldn't want them in there anyway, regardless of their talent.
Where's the disagree button?
Expecting people to put up with shitty conditions because "they should be doing it for love, not money" is an attitude that everyone from social workers to not-for-profits to teachers to armed services has been fighting against.
It's just a variation of "You should be grateful to work here" which I repudiate under any circumstance.
The CIA contains, for example, talented torturers and talented manipulators of domestic politics and domestic public opinion. Are there good HUMINT people working there? 9/11 was a famous failure for them, of course. I don't know enough about the agency to judge. But I'm not convinced at all that we have the right kind of people working there. If the talented torturers leave, that's good, right?
The CIA has many talented people, some of whom are talented IT administrators fixing email complaints, some of whom do nothing but book hotel and flights for travelling officers, some of whom do nothing but crunch raw numbers which they have very little knowledge of what it refers to, and some of whom are torturers. There are over 20,000 people working in the CIA, the vast majority of whom have little to no interaction with operations (let alone torturing - a lot of that was outsourced to private contractors anyway), and the vast majority of whom would require a severance package if the CIA was reformed, may go to the private sector, and who are expected to come back to their old jobs after they've been destabilized twice and hopefully after "the bad guys" are weeded out? Hell no.
I'm not trying to make a "few bad apples" argument - I'm also of the opinion it's more of a "Bad Barrel" situation than a "Bad Apple" situation - I'm trying to paint a picture of what a clusterfuck dissolving the CIA would be. Paying out all these severances to staff, and then hoping they all the "Good Guys" walk back in X months later so you retain their skills and knowledge at roughly the same salary is a pipedream. Even if you quietly started rehiring immediately, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a not-insignificant number of non-ops people saying "Fuck that" and never coming back.
You're talking THOUSANDS of people in support functions, let alone IT, database, and sheer personal contact networks that would take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild - not to mention all the foreign contacts who will be desperately hoping that the newbies who come in will eventually get back to them before the local organizations find out they used to provide intel to the US.
I was going to say leave them alone but it's not unlikely there are "bad apples" there too, and a few would a have a working relationship with those "bad apples" that need purging. The leadership over the divisions definitely needs purging asap. Not all of the "bad apples" did the torturing themselves they ordered flunkies to do it for them, either by outsourcing to other countries or what happened with Guantanamo - where soldiers did it, like Lynndie England.
In a May 11, 2004 interview with Denver CBS affiliate television station KCNC-TV, England reportedly said that she was "instructed by persons in higher ranks" to commit the acts of abuse for psyop reasons, and that she should keep doing it, because it worked as intended. England noted that she felt "weird" when a commanding officer asked her to do such things as "stand there, give the thumbs up, and smile". However, England felt that she was doing "nothing out of the ordinary".[16]
...and to top it all off, the torturers may not even leave! Because, hey, why would I take a 9-5 desk job when I can potentially be government-sponsored torturing again in 5 years time because we've got entire databases that no-one understands and we need HUMINT information fast.
Don't give them a choice, fire them. They're government employees, not kings. Surely there's a law for making them give us that vital intelligence. Reporters have gone to jail for not revealing their sources, these people would be threatening national security by extorting the government to do what they want. Or maybe extortion charges?
How far do you take this though? Because if you want to purge everyone with a "working relationship" you will very likely shitcan a lot of analysts that weren't directly involved in the "Enhanced Interrogation" program because they provided interrogators with PIRs (Priority Intelligence Requirements, I was Army MI so I'm not sure the CIA equivalent) and were in turn provided IIRs (reports based on interrogations).
My shitty old man is really pissing me off on this. "Torture does work, but the CIA can't admit to how effective it is because of national security reasons." I've told him he's full of shit. Then there is the whole, "we shouldn't have this discussion out in the open, it should have been done internally because it makes us look bad!" Again bullshit, of course, the easy way to avoid looking bad, would be to not do incredibly shitty stuff in the first place. Plus, there's the whole issue where the CIA fucking stonewalled everything they could, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the shitbags in Congress knew what was going on. So fuck them, let's have the discussion in the open, maybe that will muster up enough support to reign the fuckers in (I wouldn't mind burning the CIA down to the ground, firing the upper echelons of it's rank and file, and rebuilding from scratch, but sadly, I don't think there is enough interest there because the US electorate kind sucks right now).
Also getting annoyed with the whole, "it's totally political!" No, if it was political, it would be released before the elections when it's a big news story for our shitty national media with poor attention skill, same for much of the electorate. Instead it got released right after the election, given both the media and much of the public two years to forget about it. Plus, this is going to be the thing that would sink Jeb Bush in the GOP 2016 Presidential Primary or the thing that would sink him in the General 2016 US Presidential race (if he does get the nod).
I feel like an argument about whether or not torture is effective already gives away too much ground.
Even if it was the most effective means ever of getting information, it shouldn't be done. I'm always reminded of that Shep Smith clip where he just refused to argue about whether or not it worked, just pounded his desk and said, "No. We don't do that. We don't torture people."
Agreed. Not only because it is morally reprehensible, but even if it was effective at eliciting useful information from a source, it would be super ineffective at developing sources and intelligence (the work required to make sure you have the right source before you beat him with a chair leg, and what would happen to all of your walk in sources if they heard you tortured them). It really doesn't make any sense operationally.
People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."
Just pack it in folks, we lost.
lots of people care. and there are many who clearly would care but have ended up on the cultural/ political side of things where they're on the defensive and acting like assholes about the whole thing.
mostly it's just that our system of government makes it impossible for anything to get done without basic unanimity.
And there was a time when I thought torture being evil was a unanimously held view.
Execution isn't seen as being evil, unanimously.
Bad people suffering isn't seen as being evil, unanimously.
I don't know where you got the idea that torture was seen as evil, unanimously.
Capital punishment is in no way comparable to torture; and while I strongly disagree with the arguments for it, they are at least morally defensible and predicated on due process of law and a humane execution.
And I got the idea from our centuries of law, jurisprudence, treaty obligations, and, until now, universal condemnation from leaders across the political spectrum.
Then you probably weren't looking in the right places. Think about jokes about pound-me-in-the-ass prison. People are very often pretty ok with inflicting horrible suffering on people they think have done something wrong.
Of course the issue is, as per this thread, that the civilian intelligence service was ordered to do something reprehensible that is not effective in their mission. The solution isn't to do away with the entire concept of civilian clandestine collections, the solution is to not tell them to do things that are reprehensible and ineffective.
Also, this is true only in the sense that it's true that I gave my nephew permission to eat an entire bag of cookies by telling him that he could have a cookie. Which is to say, it's not really true.
Senators & oversight committees told the CIA to proceed with their operations only because the CIA provided incomplete or outright false information to said senators & oversight committees. It's kind of hard for the government to give clear orders to a group that is essentially running rogue operations and lying to the civilian leadership that is supposed to be in charge.
That's what like half of the summary is dedicated to: the frustrations of the committee running into a wall of misinformation & refusal to cooperate. Feinstein had to literally go over to the CIA's offices and basically steal the stuff she was supposed to be getting from the directors.
So, no, this isn't really something you can just pretend is the President's fault or whatever. I'm not even sure how much i can blame Bush (though Cheney is another matter, as he was clearly doing a reacharound behind his own fucking office). The CIA was off doing it's own thing and did not listen to nor share accurate information with Washington.
The CIA had a different relationship with W.'s administration. In the early years they were refusing to do what they said so much Dick Cheney himself went down to their central office to tell them to get in line. After that the CIA went along with their orders, they weren't rogue then. They're going rogue now because they don't answer to monsters who encourage it.
I feel like an argument about whether or not torture is effective already gives away too much ground.
Even if it was the most effective means ever of getting information, it shouldn't be done. I'm always reminded of that Shep Smith clip where he just refused to argue about whether or not it worked, just pounded his desk and said, "No. We don't do that. We don't torture people."
I agree with you that torture shouldn't be done, but taking out the argument about its effectiveness means that you're stuck debating opinions on ethics. "Well, *I* think we should never torture." "Well, *I* think that if it works we should." There's not much of an argument to be had there, other than fairly abstract ethical ones.
Therefore I think it's important that the effectiveness of torture at producing valid intel is really important, because if anyone is on the fence about it it's much more likely to get them to rethink their stance. Anyone who says, "Well, I wish we didn't have to torture, but if it saves lives..." might be swayed by arguing that torture is actually really bad at doing what most people hope it does.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
My shitty old man is really pissing me off on this. "Torture does work, but the CIA can't admit to how effective it is because of national security reasons." I've told him he's full of shit. Then there is the whole, "we shouldn't have this discussion out in the open, it should have been done internally because it makes us look bad!" Again bullshit, of course, the easy way to avoid looking bad, would be to not do incredibly shitty stuff in the first place. Plus, there's the whole issue where the CIA fucking stonewalled everything they could, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the shitbags in Congress knew what was going on. So fuck them, let's have the discussion in the open, maybe that will muster up enough support to reign the fuckers in (I wouldn't mind burning the CIA down to the ground, firing the upper echelons of it's rank and file, and rebuilding from scratch, but sadly, I don't think there is enough interest there because the US electorate kind sucks right now).
Also getting annoyed with the whole, "it's totally political!" No, if it was political, it would be released before the elections when it's a big news story for our shitty national media with poor attention skill, same for much of the electorate. Instead it got released right after the election, given both the media and much of the public two years to forget about it. Plus, this is going to be the thing that would sink Jeb Bush in the GOP 2016 Presidential Primary or the thing that would sink him in the General 2016 US Presidential race (if he does get the nod).
I feel like an argument about whether or not torture is effective already gives away too much ground.
Even if it was the most effective means ever of getting information, it shouldn't be done. I'm always reminded of that Shep Smith clip where he just refused to argue about whether or not it worked, just pounded his desk and said, "No. We don't do that. We don't torture people."
Hmm, I couldn't find anything a long those specific lines, was it this one?
This brings to mind 2 things. First, I like Shepard Smith. I can't say I always agree with him but whenever I've seen him he's at least seemed reasonable and intelligent, he's the best guy on Fox News hands down. And the second thing (the more important thing) is that what Shep said in that video,
"Of course, we know what the problem is. We know what this is thought Cliff, this isn't about what's torture - what this is about is a series of dots which people are now connecting mentally in a backward fashion: If there was torture that's a crime, if there was crime there were criminals. Who ordered the torture? That's the problem, it's political, and the Right is going 'Get away from George Bush and his administration, it's over! Remember look forward? Remember look forward?' And the other sides' going ' This is torture.' I mean that's where we are isn't it? It's that simple isn't it?"
Hard to imagine that was 5 years ago. For a lot of reasons.
I still remember that whole Mancow thing where he was comparing waterboarding to "splashing water in your face". Then he got a guy to do it to him as a demonstration and declared it's definitely torture in about 45 seconds
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I still remember that whole Mancow thing where he was comparing waterboarding to "splashing water in your face". Then he got a guy to do it to him as a demonstration and declared it's definitely torture in about 45 seconds
Hitchens (IIRC) did it too to prove it wasn't torture... and then recanted that view after it fucked him up permanently and he developed PTSD.
Also, I took a peek through the thread here and I'm glad we've already covered Krauthammer being an asshole on WaPo. Apparently he took a break from typing out his pro-Isreal stock in trade to visit this on us.
The most liked comment involved a self-identified Jew asking him if he didn't learn a fucking thing from the Holocaust. Warmed my heart to see that.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I still remember that whole Mancow thing where he was comparing waterboarding to "splashing water in your face". Then he got a guy to do it to him as a demonstration and declared it's definitely torture in about 45 seconds
He lasted 6 seconds, about 8 less than the average person holds out.
I still remember that whole Mancow thing where he was comparing waterboarding to "splashing water in your face". Then he got a guy to do it to him as a demonstration and declared it's definitely torture in about 45 seconds
He lasted 6 seconds, about 8 less than the average person holds out.
Before I knew how dangerous it could be, I tried a half-assed self-waterboarding in the shower shortly after watching the Hitchens footage, because I had difficulty comprehending what was so distressing about the situation.
I put a folded towel over my face, laid down with my hands behind my head and turned the faucet on with my foot (again, note, this was extremely stupid to do but I wasn't aware at the time that this was actually a potentially fatal thing to do).
There is no 'simulating' anything - the towel weighs down on your face and forms a seal around your mouth and nose. Water then starts pouring in. You may as well be underwater; it is impossible to do anything other than try to hold your breath for as long as you can (even if you have your mouth tightly closed, water still comes in through your nose - which is about as terrible as you can probably guess).
i can't imagine anyone who hasn't been specially trained for holding their breath & prepped for the experience by hyperventilating lasting longer than a few seconds, because you just cannot intake air. If you were restrained someone doing it to you refused to relent, you'd almost certainly die of asphyxiation.
Today in people who can go fuck themselves: it's Antonin Scalia! OK, he can fuck himself every day.
The guy is fairly schizophrenic on accuseds' rights. Sometimes he's a voice of reason, sometimes not.
He's also not really saying a whole lot of anything. So what if the Constitution doesn't say that? It's a fucking framework, it's not supposed to be an exhaustive list. The USSC has read more rights into it (rightfully so) than are specifically enumerated.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
How can you be involved in the Judicial branch for so long and be so bad at it?
Unless... no, there's no way somebody as ethical and intelligent as Scalia would intentionally rule in certain ways, knowing that it's not actually backed up by anything, just to have his personal beliefs upheld by legal precedent. That'd be, like, being an activist and a judge at the same time!
You guys are barking up the wrong tree. If Scalia's jurisprudence is any indication, he doesn't need logic or rational thought to support his arguments.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
Any nuclear attack would take an extensive lead time, though it wouldn't literally have a digital clock on it to countdown to 0:00.
That said, I'm pretty comfortable with having torture illegal and if someone does actually torture and prevents a nuclear attack, does anyone actually think they'll get all the way from the prosecutorial discretion to conviction to pardon decision without being given a pass? That's an edge case scenario if I've ever seen one.
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
Any nuclear attack would take an extensive lead time, though it wouldn't literally have a digital clock on it to countdown to 0:00.
That said, I'm pretty comfortable with having torture illegal and if someone does actually torture and prevents a nuclear attack, does anyone actually think they'll get all the way from the prosecutorial discretion to conviction to pardon decision without being given a pass? That's an edge case scenario if I've ever seen one.
Given America's history with torture? Yes.
edit: You have to be a nobody like Lynndie England before you'd get punished for it, and that was still a rare event. If they had been involved in stopping a nuclear bomb they'd be politically untouchable from the law. Not that it was against the law back then, W.'s administration spend a lot of hours making sure torture was legal to protect themselves thanks to John Yoo.
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
Any nuclear attack would take an extensive lead time, though it wouldn't literally have a digital clock on it to countdown to 0:00.
That said, I'm pretty comfortable with having torture illegal and if someone does actually torture and prevents a nuclear attack, does anyone actually think they'll get all the way from the prosecutorial discretion to conviction to pardon decision without being given a pass? That's an edge case scenario if I've ever seen one.
Given America's history with torture? Yes.
edit: You have to be a nobody like Lynndie England before you'd get punished for it, and that was still a rare event. If they had been involved in stopping a nuclear bomb they'd be politically untouchable from the law. Not that it was against the law back then, W.'s administration spend a lot of hours making sure torture was legal to protect themselves thanks to John Yoo.
Well, that's what I mean. I was unclear. There's no reason to have torture legal in case of a ticking time bomb, because if a ticking time bomb scenario ever actually happens, it will be de facto legal anyways.
Also, it would lead to Albuquerque when the bomb was in New York though admittedly I'm arguing effectiveness again when that's beside the point. It's just so stupid on every level grrrrrar.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Today in people who can go fuck themselves: it's Antonin Scalia! OK, he can fuck himself every day.
The guy is fairly schizophrenic on accuseds' rights. Sometimes he's a voice of reason, sometimes not.
He's also not really saying a whole lot of anything. So what if the Constitution doesn't say that? It's a fucking framework, it's not supposed to be an exhaustive list. The USSC has read more rights into it (rightfully so) than are specifically enumerated.
For this, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Bush admin wanted to "indefinitely detain" a US citizen without trial, the majority said that Hamdi had limited due process rights, and they worked out what they considered to be an acceptable procedure. Only Scalia and Stevens committed to the perfectly correct position that there was already a procedure, for Congress to suspend habeas corpus. Since they hadn't done that, Hamdi had to be released or charged, and the Court had no basis for inventing a new process.
But yeah, the problem with Scalia's argument here is that the Constitution only establishes one crime (treason). Whether or not torture is prohibited in the Constitution is fucking irrelevant, it's illegal. And the laws of the USA (we ratified that treaty, Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land) say a) there are no excuses for security needs or emergencies or any other reason (article 2) and b) it applies to everyone under our control, citizen or not (article 5). It might well be constitutional to have laws that specifically permit torture on foreign "terrorists", but those aren't the laws we have.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I mean, it's a pretty famous line.
I think the typical bullshit justification is that "it isn't a punishment! It's a way to get information! Completely different!"
Although a quick scan of the Torture Report hashtag on Twitter will give you plenty of people who consider it a just and noble punishment for those guys who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and, in some cases, anything at all.
Also, it would lead to Albuquerque when the bomb was in New York though admittedly I'm arguing effectiveness again when that's beside the point. It's just so stupid on every level grrrrrar.
I think the effectiveness argument would be important if not for the systemic argument. I'd argue a terrorist's right to successfully withhold operation details loses to the right of his future victims to not die.
That said, why torture is wrong is because you cannot guarantee you're torturing only people who are guilty, have information to share, and torture is the best way of getting that information. Cannot now, cannot for decades or centuries to come. This report is very clear that "this dude was named by one dude," or "this dude is related to this other dude" was considered sufficient reason to start torturing people.
If we're in the realm of a hypothetical trolley cart headed for a fatal collision with three workers, and you can torture an evil trolley cart conductor into stopping it, I'd argue you should. But when we're "pretty sure" this guy knows something in the real world, it's a different matter.
I'd argue the arguments against torture are sufficient even if you concede the fact it might be hypothetically moral in circumstances that won't meaningfully occur in the real world.
Let's be honest here, the methods used to torture were not clinical, "sorry I have to do this to you but I need that information", or detached in any way. Make no mistake, the people who did the torturing were doing it, at least in part (I can't say exactly how big it was), because they enjoyed torturing people.
As far I understand from watching Maddow the other night at least one guy was put in absolute solitary confinement for a couple of months, then water boarded for a few days and only after that they started asking questions.
Which doesn't seem very effective in terms of finding that ticking time bomb or whatever other imminent threat.
As far I understand from watching Maddow the other night at least one guy was put in absolute solitary confinement for a couple of months, then water boarded for a few days and only after that they started asking questions.
Which doesn't seem very effective in terms of finding that ticking time bomb or whatever other imminent threat.
What's sad is that he's lucky compared to how others were tortured. That's how fucked up the situation was.
Any information they have by that point is outdated and potentially false. If you're planning to bomb NYC and one of your men are captured, the logical thing to do would be to alter your plans, maybe even your whole location. I wouldn't trust these guys with interrogating a toaster.
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
The "ticking bomb" is a hypothetical basis for the question of whether torture should be used or not. Alan Dershowitz (who, from my reading disagrees with torture as a method for anything) uses it in his teaching at Harvard School of Law. Most students try to their best to get around the question so they aren't outright saying torture is good or bad.
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
The "ticking bomb" is a hypothetical basis for the question of whether torture should be used or not. Alan Dershowitz (who, from my reading disagrees with torture as a method for anything) uses it in his teaching at Harvard School of Law. Most students try to their best to get around the question so they aren't outright saying torture is good or bad.
It's a stupid fucking hypothetical with no basis in reality, and I don't care which authority figure you wish to use to try and give it merit. There is never a 'ticking bomb'; even with something like the 9/11 attacks, where the eventual hijackers were under surveillance, there was no reasonable way to tell which day they were going to jump off the pier or how they were going to do it.
Did Tsarnev set-up a ticking bomb in Boston? How about McVeigh in Oklahoma City? Oswald in Dallas?
I think we would be much better off if we would accept that there are times when shitty people will have their screws come loose, and there is no reasonable way to predict or circumvent these terrible things. We can mitigate them by having a better society, but trying to defeat any would-be attackers through pre-emptive police action will do more damage than any given attack.
It also probably isnt a good idea because all the talented people in the CIA wouldnt stick arround for the restructuring and would go to the highest bidder in the private sector.
Good. If they were only in it for the opportunity to serve themselves rather than serve the public, you probably wouldn't want them in there anyway, regardless of their talent.
Where's the disagree button?
Expecting people to put up with shitty conditions because "they should be doing it for love, not money" is an attitude that everyone from social workers to not-for-profits to teachers to armed services has been fighting against.
It's just a variation of "You should be grateful to work here" which I repudiate under any circumstance.
The CIA contains, for example, talented torturers and talented manipulators of domestic politics and domestic public opinion. Are there good HUMINT people working there? 9/11 was a famous failure for them, of course. I don't know enough about the agency to judge. But I'm not convinced at all that we have the right kind of people working there. If the talented torturers leave, that's good, right?
The CIA has many talented people, some of whom are talented IT administrators fixing email complaints, some of whom do nothing but book hotel and flights for travelling officers, some of whom do nothing but crunch raw numbers which they have very little knowledge of what it refers to, and some of whom are torturers. There are over 20,000 people working in the CIA, the vast majority of whom have little to no interaction with operations (let alone torturing - a lot of that was outsourced to private contractors anyway), and the vast majority of whom would require a severance package if the CIA was reformed, may go to the private sector, and who are expected to come back to their old jobs after they've been destabilized twice and hopefully after "the bad guys" are weeded out? Hell no.
I'm not trying to make a "few bad apples" argument - I'm also of the opinion it's more of a "Bad Barrel" situation than a "Bad Apple" situation - I'm trying to paint a picture of what a clusterfuck dissolving the CIA would be. Paying out all these severances to staff, and then hoping they all the "Good Guys" walk back in X months later so you retain their skills and knowledge at roughly the same salary is a pipedream. Even if you quietly started rehiring immediately, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a not-insignificant number of non-ops people saying "Fuck that" and never coming back.
You're talking THOUSANDS of people in support functions, let alone IT, database, and sheer personal contact networks that would take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild - not to mention all the foreign contacts who will be desperately hoping that the newbies who come in will eventually get back to them before the local organizations find out they used to provide intel to the US.
I was going to say leave them alone but it's not unlikely there are "bad apples" there too, and a few would a have a working relationship with those "bad apples" that need purging. The leadership over the divisions definitely needs purging asap. Not all of the "bad apples" did the torturing themselves they ordered flunkies to do it for them, either by outsourcing to other countries or what happened with Guantanamo - where soldiers did it, like Lynndie England.
In a May 11, 2004 interview with Denver CBS affiliate television station KCNC-TV, England reportedly said that she was "instructed by persons in higher ranks" to commit the acts of abuse for psyop reasons, and that she should keep doing it, because it worked as intended. England noted that she felt "weird" when a commanding officer asked her to do such things as "stand there, give the thumbs up, and smile". However, England felt that she was doing "nothing out of the ordinary".[16]
...and to top it all off, the torturers may not even leave! Because, hey, why would I take a 9-5 desk job when I can potentially be government-sponsored torturing again in 5 years time because we've got entire databases that no-one understands and we need HUMINT information fast.
Don't give them a choice, fire them. They're government employees, not kings. Surely there's a law for making them give us that vital intelligence. Reporters have gone to jail for not revealing their sources, these people would be threatening national security by extorting the government to do what they want. Or maybe extortion charges?
How far do you take this though? Because if you want to purge everyone with a "working relationship" you will very likely shitcan a lot of analysts that weren't directly involved in the "Enhanced Interrogation" program because they provided interrogators with PIRs (Priority Intelligence Requirements, I was Army MI so I'm not sure the CIA equivalent) and were in turn provided IIRs (reports based on interrogations).
The cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men...
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
The "ticking bomb" is a hypothetical basis for the question of whether torture should be used or not. Alan Dershowitz (who, from my reading disagrees with torture as a method for anything) uses it in his teaching at Harvard School of Law. Most students try to their best to get around the question so they aren't outright saying torture is good or bad.
It's a stupid fucking hypothetical with no basis in reality, and I don't care which authority figure you wish to use to try and give it merit. There is never a 'ticking bomb'; even with something like the 9/11 attacks, where the eventual hijackers were under surveillance, there was no reasonable way to tell which day they were going to jump off the pier or how they were going to do it.
Did Tsarnev set-up a ticking bomb in Boston? How about McVeigh in Oklahoma City? Oswald in Dallas?
I think we would be much better off if we would accept that there are times when shitty people will have their screws come loose, and there is no reasonable way to predict or circumvent these terrible things. We can mitigate them by having a better society, but trying to defeat any would-be attackers through pre-emptive police action will do more damage than any given attack.
Why don't you calm the fuck down and read my post before going off on what I imagine you thought was a stinging rebuttal that would surely cut off any reply on my part. I was only explaining what the "ticking bomb" comment was referring to, and used an example of someone who happens to disagree with torture on moral grounds who also happens to ask every class he teaches that question.
I have been more than polite and willing to discuss this subject so far in this thread, but if you can't be bothered to do anything other than vomit an emotional appeal against an argument that no one is even having then maybe this isn't the discussion for you.
It also probably isnt a good idea because all the talented people in the CIA wouldnt stick arround for the restructuring and would go to the highest bidder in the private sector.
Good. If they were only in it for the opportunity to serve themselves rather than serve the public, you probably wouldn't want them in there anyway, regardless of their talent.
Where's the disagree button?
Expecting people to put up with shitty conditions because "they should be doing it for love, not money" is an attitude that everyone from social workers to not-for-profits to teachers to armed services has been fighting against.
It's just a variation of "You should be grateful to work here" which I repudiate under any circumstance.
The CIA contains, for example, talented torturers and talented manipulators of domestic politics and domestic public opinion. Are there good HUMINT people working there? 9/11 was a famous failure for them, of course. I don't know enough about the agency to judge. But I'm not convinced at all that we have the right kind of people working there. If the talented torturers leave, that's good, right?
The CIA has many talented people, some of whom are talented IT administrators fixing email complaints, some of whom do nothing but book hotel and flights for travelling officers, some of whom do nothing but crunch raw numbers which they have very little knowledge of what it refers to, and some of whom are torturers. There are over 20,000 people working in the CIA, the vast majority of whom have little to no interaction with operations (let alone torturing - a lot of that was outsourced to private contractors anyway), and the vast majority of whom would require a severance package if the CIA was reformed, may go to the private sector, and who are expected to come back to their old jobs after they've been destabilized twice and hopefully after "the bad guys" are weeded out? Hell no.
I'm not trying to make a "few bad apples" argument - I'm also of the opinion it's more of a "Bad Barrel" situation than a "Bad Apple" situation - I'm trying to paint a picture of what a clusterfuck dissolving the CIA would be. Paying out all these severances to staff, and then hoping they all the "Good Guys" walk back in X months later so you retain their skills and knowledge at roughly the same salary is a pipedream. Even if you quietly started rehiring immediately, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a not-insignificant number of non-ops people saying "Fuck that" and never coming back.
You're talking THOUSANDS of people in support functions, let alone IT, database, and sheer personal contact networks that would take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild - not to mention all the foreign contacts who will be desperately hoping that the newbies who come in will eventually get back to them before the local organizations find out they used to provide intel to the US.
I was going to say leave them alone but it's not unlikely there are "bad apples" there too, and a few would a have a working relationship with those "bad apples" that need purging. The leadership over the divisions definitely needs purging asap. Not all of the "bad apples" did the torturing themselves they ordered flunkies to do it for them, either by outsourcing to other countries or what happened with Guantanamo - where soldiers did it, like Lynndie England.
In a May 11, 2004 interview with Denver CBS affiliate television station KCNC-TV, England reportedly said that she was "instructed by persons in higher ranks" to commit the acts of abuse for psyop reasons, and that she should keep doing it, because it worked as intended. England noted that she felt "weird" when a commanding officer asked her to do such things as "stand there, give the thumbs up, and smile". However, England felt that she was doing "nothing out of the ordinary".[16]
...and to top it all off, the torturers may not even leave! Because, hey, why would I take a 9-5 desk job when I can potentially be government-sponsored torturing again in 5 years time because we've got entire databases that no-one understands and we need HUMINT information fast.
Don't give them a choice, fire them. They're government employees, not kings. Surely there's a law for making them give us that vital intelligence. Reporters have gone to jail for not revealing their sources, these people would be threatening national security by extorting the government to do what they want. Or maybe extortion charges?
How far do you take this though? Because if you want to purge everyone with a "working relationship" you will very likely shitcan a lot of analysts that weren't directly involved in the "Enhanced Interrogation" program because they provided interrogators with PIRs (Priority Intelligence Requirements, I was Army MI so I'm not sure the CIA equivalent) and were in turn provided IIRs (reports based on interrogations).
The cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men...
So your stance is that everyone that works for an organization that had some people do some bad things that they weren't directly involved in should burn.
You might as well just burn down the entire U.S. government.
Posts
Also getting annoyed with the whole, "it's totally political!" No, if it was political, it would be released before the elections when it's a big news story for our shitty national media with poor attention skill, same for much of the electorate. Instead it got released right after the election, given both the media and much of the public two years to forget about it. Plus, this is going to be the thing that would sink Jeb Bush in the GOP 2016 Presidential Primary or the thing that would sink him in the General 2016 US Presidential race (if he does get the nod).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I feel like an argument about whether or not torture is effective already gives away too much ground.
Even if it was the most effective means ever of getting information, it shouldn't be done. I'm always reminded of that Shep Smith clip where he just refused to argue about whether or not it worked, just pounded his desk and said, "No. We don't do that. We don't torture people."
Hmm, I couldn't find anything a long those specific lines, was it this one?
This brings to mind 2 things. First, I like Shepard Smith. I can't say I always agree with him but whenever I've seen him he's at least seemed reasonable and intelligent, he's the best guy on Fox News hands down. And the second thing (the more important thing) is that what Shep said in that video,
"Of course, we know what the problem is. We know what this is thought Cliff, this isn't about what's torture - what this is about is a series of dots which people are now connecting mentally in a backward fashion: If there was torture that's a crime, if there was crime there were criminals. Who ordered the torture? That's the problem, it's political, and the Right is going 'Get away from George Bush and his administration, it's over! Remember look forward? Remember look forward?' And the other sides' going ' This is torture.' I mean that's where we are isn't it? It's that simple isn't it?"
Hard to imagine that was 5 years ago. For a lot of reasons.
I don't work for CIA so I don't have a dog in this fight, and my example was of Russian success (Robert Hansen) motivated by money.
I will readily admit CIA has its problems, and were I DCI there would be changes I would personally make that would hopefully relieve problems that CIA has today.
How far do you take this though? Because if you want to purge everyone with a "working relationship" you will very likely shitcan a lot of analysts that weren't directly involved in the "Enhanced Interrogation" program because they provided interrogators with PIRs (Priority Intelligence Requirements, I was Army MI so I'm not sure the CIA equivalent) and were in turn provided IIRs (reports based on interrogations).
Agreed. Not only because it is morally reprehensible, but even if it was effective at eliciting useful information from a source, it would be super ineffective at developing sources and intelligence (the work required to make sure you have the right source before you beat him with a chair leg, and what would happen to all of your walk in sources if they heard you tortured them). It really doesn't make any sense operationally.
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportionate to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
The CIA had a different relationship with W.'s administration. In the early years they were refusing to do what they said so much Dick Cheney himself went down to their central office to tell them to get in line. After that the CIA went along with their orders, they weren't rogue then. They're going rogue now because they don't answer to monsters who encourage it.
Therefore I think it's important that the effectiveness of torture at producing valid intel is really important, because if anyone is on the fence about it it's much more likely to get them to rethink their stance. Anyone who says, "Well, I wish we didn't have to torture, but if it saves lives..." might be swayed by arguing that torture is actually really bad at doing what most people hope it does.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's this clip:
Hitchens (IIRC) did it too to prove it wasn't torture... and then recanted that view after it fucked him up permanently and he developed PTSD.
Also, I took a peek through the thread here and I'm glad we've already covered Krauthammer being an asshole on WaPo. Apparently he took a break from typing out his pro-Isreal stock in trade to visit this on us.
The most liked comment involved a self-identified Jew asking him if he didn't learn a fucking thing from the Holocaust. Warmed my heart to see that.
He lasted 6 seconds, about 8 less than the average person holds out.
Before I knew how dangerous it could be, I tried a half-assed self-waterboarding in the shower shortly after watching the Hitchens footage, because I had difficulty comprehending what was so distressing about the situation.
I put a folded towel over my face, laid down with my hands behind my head and turned the faucet on with my foot (again, note, this was extremely stupid to do but I wasn't aware at the time that this was actually a potentially fatal thing to do).
There is no 'simulating' anything - the towel weighs down on your face and forms a seal around your mouth and nose. Water then starts pouring in. You may as well be underwater; it is impossible to do anything other than try to hold your breath for as long as you can (even if you have your mouth tightly closed, water still comes in through your nose - which is about as terrible as you can probably guess).
i can't imagine anyone who hasn't been specially trained for holding their breath & prepped for the experience by hyperventilating lasting longer than a few seconds, because you just cannot intake air. If you were restrained someone doing it to you refused to relent, you'd almost certainly die of asphyxiation.
The guy is fairly schizophrenic on accuseds' rights. Sometimes he's a voice of reason, sometimes not.
He's also not really saying a whole lot of anything. So what if the Constitution doesn't say that? It's a fucking framework, it's not supposed to be an exhaustive list. The USSC has read more rights into it (rightfully so) than are specifically enumerated.
I mean, it's a pretty famous line.
Unless... no, there's no way somebody as ethical and intelligent as Scalia would intentionally rule in certain ways, knowing that it's not actually backed up by anything, just to have his personal beliefs upheld by legal precedent. That'd be, like, being an activist and a judge at the same time!
The argument coming from Scalia, I believe, would be that the protections of the constitution do not extend to terrorists.
Everything is permitted, as long as you're doing it to brown people who don't live here.
Yes. This is exactly how bomb attacks work.
The terrorists set a days-long timer so that investigators have just enough time to track it down and cut the red wire.
He's one of the people who cites 24.
Any nuclear attack would take an extensive lead time, though it wouldn't literally have a digital clock on it to countdown to 0:00.
That said, I'm pretty comfortable with having torture illegal and if someone does actually torture and prevents a nuclear attack, does anyone actually think they'll get all the way from the prosecutorial discretion to conviction to pardon decision without being given a pass? That's an edge case scenario if I've ever seen one.
Given America's history with torture? Yes.
edit: You have to be a nobody like Lynndie England before you'd get punished for it, and that was still a rare event. If they had been involved in stopping a nuclear bomb they'd be politically untouchable from the law. Not that it was against the law back then, W.'s administration spend a lot of hours making sure torture was legal to protect themselves thanks to John Yoo.
Well, that's what I mean. I was unclear. There's no reason to have torture legal in case of a ticking time bomb, because if a ticking time bomb scenario ever actually happens, it will be de facto legal anyways.
But yeah, the problem with Scalia's argument here is that the Constitution only establishes one crime (treason). Whether or not torture is prohibited in the Constitution is fucking irrelevant, it's illegal. And the laws of the USA (we ratified that treaty, Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land) say a) there are no excuses for security needs or emergencies or any other reason (article 2) and b) it applies to everyone under our control, citizen or not (article 5). It might well be constitutional to have laws that specifically permit torture on foreign "terrorists", but those aren't the laws we have.
I think the typical bullshit justification is that "it isn't a punishment! It's a way to get information! Completely different!"
Although a quick scan of the Torture Report hashtag on Twitter will give you plenty of people who consider it a just and noble punishment for those guys who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and, in some cases, anything at all.
You goose! Cut the green wire! You've doomed us all!
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I think the effectiveness argument would be important if not for the systemic argument. I'd argue a terrorist's right to successfully withhold operation details loses to the right of his future victims to not die.
That said, why torture is wrong is because you cannot guarantee you're torturing only people who are guilty, have information to share, and torture is the best way of getting that information. Cannot now, cannot for decades or centuries to come. This report is very clear that "this dude was named by one dude," or "this dude is related to this other dude" was considered sufficient reason to start torturing people.
If we're in the realm of a hypothetical trolley cart headed for a fatal collision with three workers, and you can torture an evil trolley cart conductor into stopping it, I'd argue you should. But when we're "pretty sure" this guy knows something in the real world, it's a different matter.
I'd argue the arguments against torture are sufficient even if you concede the fact it might be hypothetically moral in circumstances that won't meaningfully occur in the real world.
Which doesn't seem very effective in terms of finding that ticking time bomb or whatever other imminent threat.
What's sad is that he's lucky compared to how others were tortured. That's how fucked up the situation was.
The "ticking bomb" is a hypothetical basis for the question of whether torture should be used or not. Alan Dershowitz (who, from my reading disagrees with torture as a method for anything) uses it in his teaching at Harvard School of Law. Most students try to their best to get around the question so they aren't outright saying torture is good or bad.
It's a stupid fucking hypothetical with no basis in reality, and I don't care which authority figure you wish to use to try and give it merit. There is never a 'ticking bomb'; even with something like the 9/11 attacks, where the eventual hijackers were under surveillance, there was no reasonable way to tell which day they were going to jump off the pier or how they were going to do it.
Did Tsarnev set-up a ticking bomb in Boston? How about McVeigh in Oklahoma City? Oswald in Dallas?
I think we would be much better off if we would accept that there are times when shitty people will have their screws come loose, and there is no reasonable way to predict or circumvent these terrible things. We can mitigate them by having a better society, but trying to defeat any would-be attackers through pre-emptive police action will do more damage than any given attack.
Why don't you calm the fuck down and read my post before going off on what I imagine you thought was a stinging rebuttal that would surely cut off any reply on my part. I was only explaining what the "ticking bomb" comment was referring to, and used an example of someone who happens to disagree with torture on moral grounds who also happens to ask every class he teaches that question.
I have been more than polite and willing to discuss this subject so far in this thread, but if you can't be bothered to do anything other than vomit an emotional appeal against an argument that no one is even having then maybe this isn't the discussion for you.
So your stance is that everyone that works for an organization that had some people do some bad things that they weren't directly involved in should burn.
You might as well just burn down the entire U.S. government.