U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA

[lisab]

Due to the false equivalency fallacy people have regarding the definition of "torture" and the extent of its use, I feel that it is important here to analyze the issue in the context of the specifics of the methods and applications. For example, just saying "I feel torture is justified" would be vaguely correct for me, but woefully oversimplified and misleading.

For example, I feel that waterboarding, while it is fair to call it torture, is in a different class from, for example, physical beating, because if done properly it doesn't cause injury. What is your opinion on that?

I class them together. It's a moral/ethics/character question for me. If I wouldn't -- couldn't -- do it myself because of the "ick" factor, then I don't want anyone doing it for me.

Besides, is there any evidence showing "torture light" gives better results* than full-on branding irons and high-speed drills?

*I define 'results' as accurate, actionable information, not just animalistic satisfaction at causing pain to an evil person.

 

[nsaspook]

After 9/11 the CIA was given the task of stopping the next attack by just about any means possible. What I think is missing in this report is the role of Congress in authorizing these methods. The hypocrisy of some in denying they were briefed and did not object is pretty outlandish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...418da2-7bda-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

 

[russ_watters]

I class them together. It's a moral/ethics/character question for me. If I wouldn't -- couldn't -- do it myself because of the "ick" factor, then I don't want anyone doing it for me.

Fair enough. I don't agree - in particular, when it comes to crime and punishment, we don't punish all crimes equally -- even crimes with the same name (different degrees of murder, plus varied sentencing guidelines). I can respect a strict line in the sand/strict morality, but the application can be a little tough and I think the world isn't quite that black and white.

Besides, is there any evidence showing "torture light" gives better results* than full-on branding irons and high-speed drills?

I'm not sure but in my opinion that's a completely separate question. If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what results it gives and if something is not wrong it is not wrong regardless of what results it gives.

From a practical standpoint, though, of course, if neither work, neither should be used.

*I define 'results' as accurate, actionable information, not just animalistic satisfaction at causing pain to an evil person.

Certainly -- and while I haven't read the report yet, I haven't had the impression that we've tortured for punishment. Did you?

See - it is possible to have a calm/rational discussion while disagreeing!

 

[lisab]

Certainly -- and while I haven't read the report yet, I haven't had the impression that we've tortured for punishment. Did you?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded many, many times. At some point, the interrogators had to realize the guy isn't going to crack, but they kept on doing it. I think that's either crazy (by Einstein's definition: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"), or the interrogators were just meting out punishment.

See - it is possible to have a calm/rational discussion while disagreeing!

Indeed, and it's not only pleasant - it also keeps my blood pressure low !

 

[Bystander]

I class them together. It's a moral/ethics/character question for me.

"All black or all white?" If this is a misinterpretation, say so. If not, it's your life, your mind to make up on the subject.

If I wouldn't -- couldn't -- do it myself because of the "ick" factor, then I don't want anyone doing it for me.

Here is where the discussion keeps diverging: original question in second thread that was merged into Doug's was "good or bad?" Provokes two classes of responses, the first being personal opinions, and the second covering everything from UN human rights declarations to the Marquis de Sade.

Personal opinions are an individual's private business. Period.

The second class of responses ("good or bad?") has been approached as a question of "useful/necessary/effective" versus "not" by some of us, moral vs. immoral, constitutional vs. unconstitutional, legal (common/international/admiralty) vs. illegal, responsible vs. sociopathic ..., without clear definitions.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ehh... he's a great writer, which makes it look like he makes more sense than I think he does.
...

Zakaria is one of the few people I trust in Journalism. I first saw him on "Foreign Exchange" back in 2005. I figuratively doused my TV with gasoline in 2008, and didn't get him back on my radar until a few months ago, via the internet. Btw, Zakaria and I are polar opposites on some topics, so I'd say I'm not enamored by his linguistic gloss, but rather, by his content.

Er, really? That's the key driver? Not the communism itself? I strongly disagree with that.

This debate will make the CIA better, not worse.

If by that he means "make better decisions", I certainly agree. But I wonder where the line is for him on openness vs security. Most of what the CIA does is classified and IMO, exposing all of it - while including some plusses - would be a net detriment. To remove emotion from the issue, consider the example of the B-2 ...

I just checked, and Zakaria never used the word "communism" in his article. And I don't see the "CIA" mentioned your "B-2" wiki reference, so I don't see how your comments relate to the topic. Hence, I decline to respond.

 

[Danger]

Danger, your arguments are off topic and make no sense, they have been deleted, please do not continue with it.

Including my response to Bystander as to what sort of unsavoury situations I've been in? Has he ever retrieved someone's head from a tree following a car wreck?

 

[russ_watters]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded many, many times. At some point, the interrogators had to realize the guy isn't going to crack, but they kept on doing it. I think that's either crazy (by Einstein's definition: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"), or the interrogators were just meting out punishment.

Agreed, but given the choice between assuming someone is evil and assuming they are stubborn/thick, I'll typically go with stubborn/thick. But I know that isn't necessarily always true. For reference, I just read an article John McCain wrote soon after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton, describing his experiences. His torture was only occasionally associated with interrogation. Most of the time, they did it just because.

 

[russ_watters]

Zakaria is one of the few people I trust in Journalism. I first saw him on "Foreign Exchange" back in 2005. I figuratively doused my TV with gasoline in 2008, and didn't get him back on my radar until a few months ago, via the internet. Btw, Zakaria and I are polar opposites on some topics, so I'd say I'm not enamored by his linguistic gloss, but rather, by his content.

He's been on CNN and writing for Time for a few years. That's when I first saw him.

I just checked, and Zakaria never used the word "communism" in his article.

Yes, that's the primary flaw in the article. He wrote about the evils of the USSR without referencing the ideology of the USSR that motivated/justified the evils!

And I don't see the "CIA" mentioned your "B-2" wiki reference...

Yes, I specifically picked an example that wasn't the CIA so that we could discuss the merrits of government secrecy without the emotional knee-jerk reaction people have to the CIA. My point was that Zakaria provided no line and that's a big mistake: there are things that need to be secret, even if the secrecy causes them to not go as well as if they were open.

 

[OmCheeto]

He's been on CNN and writing for Time for a few years. That's when I first saw him.

And now, The Washington Post. It's interesting, his latest article is about the Sony-Movie-Korea incident. I totally disagree with him here. So once again, your point about him being a good writer, making him more persuasive, is false. At least where I'm involved.

Yes, that's the primary flaw in the article. He wrote about the evils of the USSR without referencing the ideology of the USSR that motivated/justified the evils!

Personally, I think France is way more communistic than the USSR was. The USSR failed for many reasons. And communism was the least of their problems, IMHO.

Yes, I specifically picked an example that wasn't the CIA so that we could discuss the merrits of government secrecy without the emotional knee-jerk reaction people have to the CIA. My point was that Zakaria provided no line and that's a big mistake: there are things that need to be secret, even if the secrecy causes them to not go as well as if they were open.

"provided no line"?
As in a fishing line?

I agree with you, that some things need to be kept secret. We were both in the Military. It's a no brainer.
But claiming that secrecy is sometimes worse than openness, and this makes it better? Ummm... Ah ha! Newspeak!

And trying to get back on topic, I share Zakaria's opinion in the matter, because:

1. The Snowden wikileaks incident actually seems to have done more good than harm, in the end.

per wikipedia:
In July 2013, the German government announced an extensive review of Germany's intelligence services.
In August 2013, the U.S. government announced an extensive review of U.S. intelligence services.
In October 2013, the British government announced an extensive review of British intelligence services.
In December 2013, the Canadian government announced an extensive review of Canada's intelligence services.
(The fact that Snowden is currently residing in Russia, strikes me as the irony of all ironies.)​

2. The Bradley Chelsea* Manning leaks seem to have enlightened people around the world, to what was really going on within their governments.

So, IMHO, the report we are currently discussing, being released, is a good thing. Even though I, and probably no one else in the world, will ever read.

Which,

Clarification on what I'm appalled at: the proportion of people in the Washington Post poll Borg posted who feel torture is justified.

makes me appalled, at the fact that 100% of respondents didn't reply with "no opinion".
Except for, perhaps the last question. I liked that one.

But that question is kind of peculiar.
Why, did The Washington Post swap the displayed order of "often" and "sometimes"?
The extremes are kind of funny.
It makes conservative republicans out to be twice as sadistic as the average American, and liberal democrats to be 50% stupider.
The correct answer was obviously: Rarelyps. Torture is, in general, bad. Except, in certain cases, in which case, I'm all; "Do it Harry!"
For those not familiar with the movie, the gentleman on the ground, pleading, is a sociopathic killer.

*Chelsea Manning? What the? We need a new "FOR THE WIN, crazy things I've learned today" thread.

 

[Astronuc]

NYT to Obama: Appoint prosecutor to investigate Cheney for torture
'These are, simply, crimes,' paper says of CIA interrogation program former vice president championed

http://news.yahoo.com/nyt-prosecute-dick-cheney-cia-torture-174154702.html

The Times' editorial board is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Cheney; David Addington, Cheney's former chief of staff; former CIA Director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the lawyers "who drafted what became known as the torture memos"; Jose Rodriguez Jr., the CIA official "who ordered the destruction of the videotapes"; psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and any CIA employees who carried it out.

 

[Borg]

From a Candorville strip this week.