Antonin Scalia says, "...it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face."

see this is why I won't just ban burt stanton or whoever is annoying some regular posters at a given moment because every time ILX massive wants to complain about some person who is boring and insipid and annoyingly gauche in their adoption of unoriginal stances on a series of subjects, ILX massive goes and has one of these threads

http://www.evemag.com/issue6/graphics/murphy.gif

"Am I real?"

contenderizer all I can do is point you to people who HAVE reviewed extensive data about torture and they seem to uniformly claim across the board that it is ineffective (thus the links/quotes I posted). I agree that this is just one of several arguments against it, but as people will tend to discount moral arguments based upon their own personal ethics, the utilitarian tack should be addressed and refuted as concisely as possible.

provided that you're willing to torture enough people and rigorously cross-check your data.

many x-posts
uh, this is kind of the textbook definition of ineffective (ie, waste of time and resources; energy expended vastly exceeds reliable data gathered etc.)

Limbaugh and company always cite the case of KSM, who endured waterboarding, but several CIA operatives doubt the integrity of the intelligence gathered, for what it's worth.

Never said that the Hilde quote proved anything. Was just trying to explain what I thought was important about it. I don't think the utility of torture has been proved or disproved. But I think arguing about whether or not it works shortchanges the moral argument.

"if the cops think someone knows who committed a murder in the meatpacking district, is it legal to beat the shit out of them until they fess up? this is a fascinating legal question etc etc"

but... most people who favor torture will automatically argue that the utilitarian argument trumps the moral argument (see Limbaugh etc)

the frustrating thing about scalia is that he is nothing if not internally consistent.

This is a myth. He was on opposite sides of a particular interpretation on the Constitution in two cases that were released ON THE SAME DAY a few years ago (Ring v. Arizona and Harris v. United States). That was the day I realized that Scalia is nothing but a talented blowhard hack.

If you want a frustrating justice who is truly internally consistent, look at Clarence Thomas.

the anti-torture position isnt going to win a moral argument against the us govt

Another angle: Ok fine let's imagine the 24 scenario actually happens, and by some unlikely happenstance we have the single mastermind of the plot to blow up LA and he knows where the bomb is and we have a psychological profile on him that says "gives in to torture."

Does anyone think that the interrogator in this situation would say to himself, "Aw nuts! Bound by the law!"

i dont think hed say "aw nuts"

also I wouldn't be surprised if once torture is institutionalized you get a kind of law of diminishing returns in effect - ie the more torture is used the less reliable information is gathered, as everyone can assume they'll be tortured whether they provide any information or not (this certainly seems to have been the case in Stalinist Russia, judging by the bio I read a year or so ago. People would just say whatever to avoid torture, creating lots of unreliable info)

x-post

the key thing here is that torture induces the prisoner to tell the torturer what they want to hear, rather than the truth

Shakey, I don't want to get caught up debating a position I don't hold. But I have done some reading on this, and I don't think the situation here is like global warming, where there's an overwhelming body of evidence that only an idiot would stand in opposition to. I think it's convenient to say that torture doesn't work, but from what I can tell, the hard evidence isn't there. The anecdotal evidence that it isn't terribly effective is VERY good, but from what I can tell, it's not correct to make a blanket statement saying that "it doesn't work".

I mean, when you refute Hilde's point by saying that institutional torture is, "the textbook definition of ineffective (ie, waste of time and resources; energy expended vastly exceeds reliable data gathered etc.)," then you invite the rebuttal: "No. Really. It works. Look at all we've learned. We foiled that cell in Basel. Saved countless lives. Would you have had them die just to save a few dollars?" The kind of argument you're making turns this into a bean-counting contest.

"bean-counting contests" are essentially inseparable from moral arguments where the US govt is concerned

well it'd be more than saving a few dollars - it would be sparing a lot of innocent people being tortured, which is kinda more important...?

KSM – one of the few suspects we know who WAS tortured – is hardly innocent. The moral question is whether you torture him anyway.

I mean basically a society that institutionalizes torture on the level Hilde is talking about would end up expending its material resources and manpower brutalizing the majority of the populace - which is not a recipe for a healthy, functioning, long-lasting society (lolz N. Korea)

well it'd be more than saving a few dollars - it would be sparing a lot of innocent people being tortured, which is kinda more important...?

But that's a moral argument, isn't it?

I mean basically a society that institutionalizes torture on the level Hilde is talking about would end up expending its material resources and manpower brutalizing the majority of the populace - which is not a recipe for a healthy, functioning, long-lasting society (lolz N. Korea)

Not necessarily. That's a worst-case scenario. The pro-torture crowd would argue that they have something much more human, reasonable and cost-effective in mind.

"humane"

In other words, torture basically "works" when you can use it indiscriminately on a population and don't care much about the collateral effects, because the goal isn't really just isolated bits of information, it's control.

"bean-counting contests" are essentially inseparable from moral arguments where the US govt is concerned

-- max

No way. Far too cynical. Morality and ethics play a huge role in determining the behavior of individuals within the government and the government as a whole. Plus there's that whole democracy angle.

one thing i don't understand is whether the pro-torture people feel that these tactics can be used against non-political suspects

could a homicide unit in philadelphia, for instance, waterboard a suspect?

In other words, torture basically "works" when you can use it indiscriminately on a population and don't care much about the collateral effects, because the goal isn't really just isolated bits of information, it's control.

No. Again, this is absurdly overstated. Torture (maybe) works when you are scientifically rigorous about the collection and verification of data. You don't have to torture everybody, and you certainly don't have to apply it "indiscriminately". Indiscriminate use of torture would, I imagine, diminsh the value of the data retreived.

youre never going to win this making a moral argument because the morality of the us government is a utilitarian morality, and its moral stance on torture is predicated on the idea that torture "works" as an information-gathering device. if you really want to get rid of torture, and not just save your conscience, youre going to need to argue that it doesnt work.

Results 1 - 10 of about 245,000 for does torture work

well it'd be more than saving a few dollars - it would be sparing a lot of innocent people being tortured, which is kinda more important...?

But that's a moral argument, isn't it?

well I think its both - on one hand I don't think its much of a stretch to consider people a "resource". what good is a brutalized and demoralized populace, they usually can't accomplish much or generate wealth etc.

x-post

i mean torture is basically built-in to us. we're conditioned to look at things as containers of resources and information. we torture the planet, essentially, to get energy from it; why not torture human beings to get information from them? the moral attitude that allows for torture is all over the place; and i think the only way to stop it is by arguing that it doesnt work.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/klein

Torture (maybe) works when you are scientifically rigorous about the collection and verification of data. You don't have to torture everybody, and you certainly don't have to apply it "indiscriminately". Indiscriminate use of torture would, I imagine, diminsh the value of the data retreived.

I don't think these two can be separated. Enforcing rigor and verifying data is a pretty slippery slope that would eventually require indiscriminate torture... and which wouldn't work for very long (see ref to law of diminishing returns above)

x-post

I mean how do you verify data except by torturing more people...?

i think the right keeps defending torture because it is desperate for something, anything, that can contain the profound anxiety unleashed free-floating on 9/11

maybe it doesn't work all the time or even most of the time, but we can IMAGINE moments in which torture does work, and that imagining is the only psychological defense they have left after having seen that guns and bombs and threats don't actually tamp that anxiety back down into its box

max is kinda right, i mean there are still lots and lots of people who defend dropping atom bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki and it's a similar moral triage they're justifying, with similarly murky and trumped-up justification

if you really want to get rid of torture, and not just save your conscience, youre going to need to argue that it doesnt work.

But what if it really does work? What if it works even some of the time, often enough to foil a few bomb plots, stamp out a few cells? What if this can be accomplished without ruffling the feathers of too many law-abiding citizens? Then where do you turn?

Corny as it may be to say so, this country was founded (and in many ways still operates) on moral principles. The trick is to turn those moral principles into hard legislation and legal precedent. And I don't think that's anywhere near as difficult as you suggest.

In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: "perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualizations obscure the purpose of torture....The aim of torture is to dehumanize the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time, set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities."

Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there's a problem: No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool--least of all the people who practice it. Torture "doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives," CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced "nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques." The Army's own interrogation field manual states that force "can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

I think you're making an interesting argument, contenderizer, but what have you got to back it up?

mean how do you verify data except by torturing more people...?

We verify data retrieved by torture the same way we do any other information. We go to place and check stuff out. We tap phones. We try to get a guy inside. Whatever. Let's say we torture a terror suspect, and he reveals the location of a cache of weapons. To verify this info, we simply go to the location described and see if there really are weapons there. That kind of thing. We wouldn't need to torture everybody, and it wouldn't have to be indiscriminate.

^^^ hueg waste of resources

I mean lolz at CIA/FBI running around fact-checking every false lead

they'd probably say "shit why should we be running around - let's just torture his compatriots and see what they say"

"sometimes a tortured terror suspect might give good information" =/= "torture is an effective way of extracting information"

I'm sure there's some ridiculous cost-effective analysis formula we could apply here

This reminds me of arguments I had about big-time sports at my school. "Do we argue that this wastes money or that it's wrong on a philosophical level?" "If we say it wastes money, people will listen." "But if it starts making money, we've lost our ground." "But it's probably not going to start making money," etc.

maybe we could have applied it to this thread

xpost

torture an accountant maybe

WE KNOW THERES A COST BENEFIT MODEL. TELL US WHAT IT IS OR WE DUNK YOU AGAIN.

lolz

Awesome.

give us an answer or 500 new posts by 3pm

I think you're making an interesting argument, contenderizer, but what have you got to back it up?

Well, I could go dig around for stuff, and maybe I will, but look at it this way: "Torture" is at least partially a pejorative term. It's not a clearly defined thing, like "sky" or "egg". At some fuzzy, ill-defined point bad treatment becomes mistreatment, and at another, similarly fuzzy point, mistreatment becomes "torture". Of course, we'll all easily agree that eye gouging and genital burning are torture. But what about prolonged isolation? What about sleep deprivation? What about scary stories?

When we say that "torture doesn't work" we're not really saying anything, especially if we haven't clearly defined what we mean by torture. It's clear that some forms of bad treatment can elicit information from suspects. The game of "good cop, bad cop" is essentially a mild form of torture, and you never hear any argument that it doesn't work. Causing people to be confused, worried or physically uncomfortable can loosen tongues and every cop knows this. Furthermore, no matter how information is retreived, there's always some chance that it might be bogus. Investigators always have to verify everything, anyway.

Torture" is at least partially a pejorative term. It's not a clearly defined thing, like "sky" or "egg".

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. I know it when i see it.