So here's what I don't get. If we think that torturing people may be an effective way of obtaining information, then why don't we try it under controlled conditions?
We train a dozen of our agents in the normal fashion, and give them seemingly important secrets. Send them off to a foreign country to carry out a mission. Then stage a kidnapping with people that appear to be working for an enemy (IS, whoever).
Then actually torture the agents. For real. We know what information they have, so we can see what information they'll actually give up. Then we can see which techniques are most efficient and effective. If they give up the name of the fellow operative, "capture" that operative, and show the agent the consequences.
That is science.
What? You say you have ethical concerns? How could we possibly do this to our own people?
What's the difference? We have willingly sacrificed the health and lives of tens of thousands of our own citizens already during the War on Terror. What's another couple dozen?
If the government isn't willing to torture our own people, and publish the results... then maybe the government shouldn't be torturing anyone at all.
My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.
When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, “My God, that’s terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.“
Or, allow government officials to publicly and openly order the use of torture, with one caveat: anything done to the tortured will be done to the official. Too high a price to pay, you say? Then the situation is not dire enough to warrant torture.
Actually not a bad idea. Given that a journalist voluntarily underwent water boarding (Hitchens [0]) I have no doubt that in a real life ticking bomb scenario there would at least be one person willing to undergo water boarding in order to do it to the suspect terrorist.
It would also prevent the sliding slope into the real nasty stuff as it is less likely someone would be willing to undergo the torture that permanently maim you.
But what if it turns out that torture really is effective? I think it is wrong and should be banned on that basis - but I am very open to the idea that properly used it might be a really valid way of collecting imperfect but useful information. I think the anti-torture side (shameful that such a concept is necessary!!) needs to be careful of putting too many of our eggs in the 'ban-torture-cause-its-ineffective' basket.
Without want to exonerate anyone, incidental loss of life is almost unavoidable for governments making big decisions with all their limitations, internal deficiencies and bad actors. I believe you are trying to hold their feet to fire and construct a normative argument. However you did preface your argument with 'I don't get'. Something I personally 'don't get' is why people such as yourself find it so hard to understand how so many people are prepared to be 'nasty' on issues like this. Without putting to fine a point on it, it is because they don't care about the consequences to certain others (here a small number of very alien, mostly militant people) and they don't feel sufficiently threatened or even do feel emboldened by any potential retaliation .
We may not like it, but The first part about effectiveness is a strawman. Since clearly in some situations it is possible to test truthfulness (by asking questions with answers you know, but they don't know you know), or get easily testable testimony (i.e. x is here), or simply get known information corroborated (which is of some value). It is simply very difficult to argue something should never be done given all the possible scenarios. Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that as a matter of policy governments shouldn't do something since they cannot be trusted and because there is clearly a slippery slope and concern about government overreach against its own citizens (then for an agent to break that policy they would themselves be facing consequences so would have to be pretty damn sure it was a good idea).
Also you fail to understand the moral disposition of people who might support torture - conservatives. They are not simple consequentalists and certainly not utilitarians. They generally consider it utterly wrong to torture or directly injure people on their side. Conservatives have a strong sense of group loyalty. I would argue it is all very well to suspend group loyalty (or confine it to sports matches) if you can have it reciprocated from other groups, but when it clearly isn't taking the high road leaves you at a loss (albeit with a moral gain).
Likewise to conservatives having a robust response to something is not a moral bad as such. Getting in the way of the (US) state can be likened to driving right to the edge of a cliff - it is your fault if you fall off, not the state's from being unyielding. Although the state could be soft on people after the fact, that would violate robustness. Instead it would prefer to push back the responsibility for any outcomes on to the individuals who have (presumably) clearly taken risks of getting caught up in this battle and then doubled down by refusing to give up information.
I am constructing an absurd argument. I mostly want to see the people who implemented torture against suspected enemies the start to try to justify its true effectiveness.
It is possible to extract information through torture. The question is how much, and how reliable is it? And most importantly, is it more effective than other non-torture methods?
The human mind is an incredible bullshit machine, and merely applying pain to it is no guarantee to get the truth out.
I suspect tortue isn't more effective than other methods, and I personally am not willing to run the experiment on my in-group to find out. I want to torturers in our government to fully come to grips with their own mortality (or lack thereof). And be prosecuted.
Just a thought question for you: If there was a terrorist attack on US soil and polling showed a majority of people wanted to water board suspected terrorists, how convinced are you that Hillary Clinton would take a moral stand against resuming water boarding? My guess based on her past is that she would go with what the polls told her. In addition, her decision would receive a whole lot less media scrutiny than if Trump tried to do it. In fact, I could even see some media spinning that as a good thing for her: "Clinton shows that women are not squeamish about doing what is necessary to keep us safe".
> “As to waterboarding, you know, our country’s most experienced and bravest military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put our own soldiers and increasingly our own civilians at risk,” Clinton said.
Rather, she said, “We do have to give law enforcement and intelligence professionals all the tools they need to do the job to keep America safe and they don’t need to resort to torture, but they are going to need more help.”
This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. So no, judging from that quote, all it would take is for someone "experienced and brave" to tell her it would be effective an a tool they need, and she's on board (as far as principles and morals go, at least).
> This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand.
There's a question here of whether the position was articulated because it is the main reason she opposes torture, or whether it is because it rebuts the main reason supporters of torture advocate that, morality aside, it must be accepted.
Politically, there is utility to highlighting arguments which demonstrate that, even accepting your opponent's decision criteria, your policy is the correct one. So even if you believe it is always morally wrong to torture regardless of utility, it is useful (if you can defend it) to argue that torture is known to not be useful if the main reason your opponents argue for it is its utility.
Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders (I haven't checked, but I would assume that he does not mince his words in moral condemnation of torture), so that doesn't really hold up.
> Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders
The opposition on that issue was not. Candidates in a primary campaign making statements designed to counter positions of potential (or known) general election opponents (or positions associated with the opposing major party, even if not actually embraced by any particular candidate of that party for the particular office in question) isn't an uncommon thing.
Politicians may, all too often, be shortsighted, but ones with even modest amounts of proficiency at campaigning aren't so much so that they can't think in terms of the broader campaign for an office (and even setting the ground for success in that office) when competing in a primary campaign.
Since you asked me, I am convinced that Hillary will do everything in her power to become powerful and remain in power for as long as possible and that her other personal beliefs, agenda and morale are secondary to that main theme.
If Clinton's behavior is highly dependent on external parameters such as polls rather than internal ones such as personal morality, then it's on the American people to make sure the external parameters are favorable. I'd take someone like that any day over someone whose personal morality is screwed up but not amenable to outside influence.
Trump is an obvious tool to railroad Hillary into office.
Like a hurricane projecting so many joules of energy into an ocean of assholes, that their obnoxious storm surge washes away more credible, but presumptive opponents right of center.
An obvious tool set up by the majority of the GOP primary electorate to screw their own party out of the presidential race? Or perhaps set up by conservative politicians, pundits, and donors who did what they could to attack Trump throughout the campaign, as some kind of reverse-psychology program because they wanted to screw themselves out of power? Set up by Trump himself, as a way to tarnish his own brand and guarantee that no one would want to do business with him in the future?
One way or another, these conspiracy-theory explanations seem a bit counterproductive from the perspective of any of the actors who might reasonably have carried out the conspiracy. The simpler explanation – that Trump is an egomaniacal bully with little knowledge of world affairs, and that enough Republican voters tend to like that for him to honestly win the primary against a weak and crowded field – seems more plausible to me, but hey...
This is my first ever post/comment on this site and, strangely, it is in admiration of a uniquely articulate comment (one of many on HN, frankly)on a rather timely and intriguing topic. I am far removed from the events in the US (2016 presidential elections). However, I am appalled that (US) presidential politics can degenerate into openly racist dialogue from the ultimate representative of a mainstream political party. I honestly thought that, in a post-Obama period, "identitarian" politics had been definitively repudiated. But as the Brexit vote, the European immigration crisis, and Trump's insurgent campaign have demonstrated, I was very wrong. Although there is no conspiracy here, I am lost as to what it means and, quite honestly, I suspect so are many others.
> "identitarian" politics had been definitively repudiated
Sadly, everything creates its own reaction: the rise of a black person who contradicts all the negative stereotypes merely enrages those people for whom "white" is an important part of their identity. See also people getting angry about female Ghostbusters.
The republican party spent so long sending coded racist messages to their supporters that those supporters have forgotten that they were supposed to speak in code.
And perhaps this is the real tragedy: that the GOP machine, in its quest to achieve its political aims (protect its congressional dominance, subvert the Obama presidency, engineer a presidential comeback post-2008/2012), fomented racial divisions that will likely change the party's very identity (I fail to see how the GOP remains the same post-Trump). Admittedly, there were similar warnings from the punditry class after the Tea Party revolt (hello 2008 mid-terms and Boehner & Co.), but this time, the divisions, disenfranchisement, and emergence of the alt-right seem a little too real to be wished away. I have seen similar events play out in my country and agree with your earlier sentiment, >everything creates its own reaction.
> See also people getting angry about female Ghostbusters
Oh come on. From the reviews leaking out it sounds like Ghostbusters is a legit shitty movie. A spoiler for the ending is out there; go read it and tell me this isn't something a 5th grader would write. No, I haven't seen it, and I probably won't, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is a female cast, but because it doesn't sound like something, based on the trailers and previews, that I would willingly spend money on.
No one complained when the main protagonists of Star Wars VII were a woman and a black man. (Or did they? I don't know, I certainly don't remember hearing it if they did.)
Obama (and other anti-racist wins) really just made the racists scared. They're not defeated, but they sense they are being pushed out and losing power, so they're fighting back.
And now the other party proles are clamoring to remove the super delegates! The only remaining control the DNC had on choosing suitable candidates. And not runaway self-funded demagogues. See how well it worked for the GOP.
> And now the other party proles are clamoring to remove the super delegates! The only remaining control the DNC had on choosing suitable candidates. And not runaway self-funded demagogues. See how well it worked for the GOP.
To be fair, even without that control mechanism, the DNC arguably is less vulnerable than the GOP. While both parties have state-to-state variation in how delegates are selected, the DNC uses basically proportional allocation in every state, whereas the GOP uses heavily disproportional mechanisms in most states (to the extreme of winner-take-all in some), which allows an early plurality in a crowded field to turn into commanding delegate lead (this seems to be by intent; its expected that connected insiders will have an early advantage, and this setup is would then get the primary competition over quickly and give the party more time to focus on the general election -- but its also easy to see how, with widespread dissatisfaction with party elites and an outsider candidate with strong name recognition and the ability to score early free media, it can backfire.)
Trump won the nomination by being the ultimate Republican.
I mean, look at the 'wall' proposal: it's a nice simple authoritarian solution which people who are afraid of Mexicans taking their jobs can support. And he even promises to get foreigners to pay for it!
None of this is remotely feasible, but that doesn't matter, because the "reality-based community" is passé. (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove passim)
None of the other Republican candidates could attack him for racism without alienating their voters, because for years they've been obliquely signalling their approval of racism. None of them could attack him for not being realistic without suffering the same problem themselves.
The wall have nothing to do with racism anymore than outer borders in the EU has. It's to do with emigration which is quite a different topic.
None of the political candidates are fundamentally disagreeing with Trump. They mostly believe that illegal immigration should be stopped and that legal immigration is perfectly fine.
The primary thing that separate Trump from either the Republicans or the Democrats in this discussion is his choice of words not his agenda.
Even Hillary was for building a wall at one point.
- In November 2002 the CIA killed at least one prisoner during interrogation by hypothermia
- The Committee found that "[a]t least five CIA detainees were subjected to 'rectal rehydration' or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity
- One detainee was subjected to "ice water baths" and 66 hours of standing sleep deprivation. He was later released as the CIA had mistaken his identity
Charles Graner, who supervised torture at Abu Ghraib, was appointed due to his experience as a prison guard at super-maximum prison SCI-Green in Pennsylvania. Graner was already involved in the SCI-Green prisoner abuse scandals and abusing his wife before his prisoner abuse at the center of the Abu Ghraib scandal.
We train a dozen of our agents in the normal fashion, and give them seemingly important secrets. Send them off to a foreign country to carry out a mission. Then stage a kidnapping with people that appear to be working for an enemy (IS, whoever).
Then actually torture the agents. For real. We know what information they have, so we can see what information they'll actually give up. Then we can see which techniques are most efficient and effective. If they give up the name of the fellow operative, "capture" that operative, and show the agent the consequences.
That is science.
What? You say you have ethical concerns? How could we possibly do this to our own people?
What's the difference? We have willingly sacrificed the health and lives of tens of thousands of our own citizens already during the War on Terror. What's another couple dozen?
If the government isn't willing to torture our own people, and publish the results... then maybe the government shouldn't be torturing anyone at all.