|
If the utility is zero then our values are negative.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This. The question is not whether or not it was effective. Well I think ultimately that's the true question, but right now most Americans would say "yes, absolutely," so emphasizing torture's ineffectiveness is a workable talking point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Our government has shown through inaction that it is complicit in and approves of torture. While I believe a large percentage of Americans are pro torture, it doesn't even matter since we have no agency in that.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Arguing with someone against torture by citing its ineffectiveness implies its use would be valid were it effective. If that were true, arguing that torture is unjustified implies that it would be effective if justified. It is possible to argue against both points simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think that's the thing though: Not only is it an embarrassment to our country, but it wasn't even an effective tool, and it was KNOWN to be defective BEFORE 9/11 and prior to its instituted use. This is not a productive line of debate because as pointed out above, it implicitly acknowledges that there could be circumstances under which torture is justified. It's taking the bait of the "saved thousands of lives!" line. The only thing that matters is that what was done was illegal and the people who broke the law need to be held accountable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Arguing with someone against torture by citing its ineffectiveness implies its use would be valid were it effective. It's also a moot point because the necessity defense is available in the US. One definition: There, to present the defense at trial, defendants must meet the burden of production on four elements: “(1) they were faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) they acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) they reasonably anticipated a direct caus al relationship be- tween their conduct and the harm to be averted; and (4) they had no legal alternatives to violating the law.” So if someone is charged with torture TODAY, they can argue it was necessary and not be convicted. So the whole "national debate" is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Something else which bears mention is that we have highly effective interrogation techniques. Torture isn't just ineffective and morally corrupt and corrupting, it's a wasted opportunity to do something works. Serious people do not torture. Using torture is just incompetence. Someone needs to cook up talking points for this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Something else which bears mention is that we have highly effective interrogation techniques. Torture isn't just ineffective and morally corrupt and corrupting, it's a wasted opportunity to do something works. Serious people do not torture. Using torture is just incompetence. Someone needs to cook up talking points for this. Right. SO it would NEVER be justified because there would always be legal alternatives. Therefore torture should not be legal and it is never justified. Wow. I can't believe this debate is happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It's also a moot point because the necessity defense is available in the US. This would only work on the individual that was ordered to carry it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This would only work on the individual that was ordered to carry it out. Well, ok but the Idea of someone ordering someone to torture someone is monstrous. Why would that ever be legal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well, ok but the Idea of someone ordering someone to torture someone is monstrous. Why would that ever be legal. We hanged the officers that ordered war crimes after WWII, not the men that did them (they'd have been shot if they refused after all).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
For those angry that Obama isn't prosecuting anyone, would you be ok if he did prosecute some people and they were all found innocent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For those angry that Obama isn't prosecuting anyone, would you be ok if he did prosecute some people and they were all found innocent? No, but we'd find it reassuring to know there's at least SOME political will to stop this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We hanged the officers that ordered war crimes after WWII, not the men that did them (they'd have been shot if they refused after all). I am just saying this is how monstrous we have become: we are debating whether torture as a policy choice is Ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We hanged the officers that ordered war crimes after WWII, not the men that did them (they'd have been shot if they refused after all). Germany has actually charged a lot of Octogenarian formerly camp guards though. I've never understood why
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For those angry that Obama isn't prosecuting anyone, would you be ok if he did prosecute some people and they were all found innocent? Is there a point to this question? Obviously no, most people would not be okay with that, but they would be a lot more okay with it than with no prosecutions at all. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Is there a point to this question? Obviously no, most people would not be okay with that, but they would be a lot more okay with it than with no prosecutions at all. The reason I raise the question is because that's why the DoJ chose not to prosecute. They didn't think they could get convictions. Which, knowing the amount of defensive evidence the Bush administration left, I'd believe it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It's also a moot point because the necessity defense is available in the US. The necessity defence does not jive with the Convention Against Torture: "CAT Article 2(2) posted:No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Yoo loving knew this as well and tried to argue that since the domestic enactment of the Convention does not specifically affirm commitment to Article 2(2) a necessity defence still stands, a claim which is pretty ropey considering the general fuziness about whether or not a necessity defence can be used when the relevant statute does not explicitly provide for it. It's a fuzzy area and by no means a slam-dunk
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well, ok but the Idea of someone ordering someone to torture someone is monstrous. Why would that ever be legal. Because the little blue pill isn't enough for Cheney any longer. But seriously, it's because we're still having a hell of a time getting away from the idea of Sovereign Immunity, and even if that weren't the case legally, it's a major logistical hurdle to prosecution because it inevitably runs up against the Watchmen Problem. Ideally, the ICC would provide some recourse here, but the US government has essentially declared itself exempt from their authority, and passed a legislative mandate for the executive branch to enforce that exemption with violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The reason I raise the question is because that's why the DoJ chose not to prosecute. They didn't think they could get convictions. Which, knowing the amount of defensive evidence the Bush administration left, I'd believe it. That's the stated reason for why they didn't prosecute. Based on this report, I don't believe that reason. But even if you think it's a weak case, for the country's standing in the international community and just as a statement of moral condemnation, bringing charges is important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Germany has actually charged a lot of Octogenarian formerly camp guards though. I've never understood why Most of them were prosecuted because they were not just some Army guy who got caught up in the middle of things, they were SS who knew what they were doing and were complicit in doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Papercut posted:That's the stated reason for why they didn't prosecute. Based on this report, I don't believe that reason. But even if you think it's a weak case, for the country's standing in the international community and just as a statement of moral condemnation, bringing charges is important. more likely those who would be prosecuted know a lot about the current administration's knowledge and policies and would certainly raise that in their defense, giving the current administration a big black eye. The Obama administration really doesn't have much moral high ground to prosecute CIA torture when it's at the same time rapidly expanding the CIA drone program with legal justifications that boil down to "I can kill whoever I want wherever I want because 'Murica." this is not saying that "hey you droned people so their torture is ok!" They're both wrong. But Obama isn't exactly rolling in moral high ground right now, especially with people like Jeh Johnson in his inner circle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:more likely those who would be prosecuted know a lot about the current administration's knowledge and policies and would certainly raise that in their defense, giving the current administration a big black eye. So is it that Obama a) doesn't want his own dirty laundry aired, b) is such a pathological centrist he actually accepts tu quoque as a valid argument, c) is a lame duck who lacks the political capital to affect change, or d) genuinely sees nothing wrong with this? I mean these are all horrible thoughts, I'd just like to know which specific flavor of depression I should be feeling this holiday season 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Papercut posted:That's the stated reason for why they didn't prosecute. Based on this report, I don't believe that reason. But even if you think it's a weak case, for the country's standing in the international community and just as a statement of moral condemnation, bringing charges is important. In your mind who should they charge then? The torturers themselves? The psychologists running the program? John Yoo? President Bush? Everyone involved from the person who blended the hummus on up? If you think the lack of indictments would sour international relations, imagine how our courts officially determining that this wasn't torture would go over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:So is it that Obama a) doesn't want his own dirty laundry aired, b) is such a pathological centrist he actually accepts tu quoque as a valid argument, c) is a lame duck who lacks the political capital to affect change, or d) genuinely sees nothing wrong with this? Why choose one? Blend them all in a shaker and make a Malaise Martini. Malaitini.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In your mind who should they charge then? The torturers themselves? The psychologists running the program? John Yoo? President Bush? Everyone involved from the person who blended the hummus on up? Yes. quote:If you think the lack of indictments would sour international relations, imagine how our courts officially determining that this wasn't torture would go over. I disagree but whatever, any argument on this point is purely my fiction versus your fiction. I think our government attempting to hold those accountable would be more respected than doing nothing at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:So is it that Obama a) doesn't want his own dirty laundry aired, b) is such a pathological centrist he actually accepts tu quoque as a valid argument, c) is a lame duck who lacks the political capital to affect change, or d) genuinely sees nothing wrong with this? it's not so much whether *he* supports tu quoque. It's how it would go over in court. If a jury (or whoever the fact finder is) sees the people pushing the prosecution as just as barbaric as the one in the defendant's chair, and questions whether this is just an exercise in scapegoating, it's a recipe for jury nullification. so you end up with an acquittal AND a whole lot of dirty laundry aired. Really the legal "justifications" for our drone program are loving terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:it's not so much whether *he* supports tu quoque. It's how it would go over in court. If a jury (or whoever the fact finder is) sees the people pushing the prosecution as just as barbaric as the one in the defendant's chair, and questions whether this is just an exercise in scapegoating, it's a recipe for jury nullification. I wonder where, exactly, future historians will say "here, this point, is where Americans abandoned the rule of law."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wonder where, exactly, future historians will say "here, this point, is where Americans abandoned the rule of law." September 11 2001 Bin Laden won
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
red_blip posted:So I deleted that post quick-fast and came to see what any of you would have responded to them. Assuming you don't want to get drawn into a philosophical discussion about whether torture can be justified, 1 - The CIA's own documents more or less say that this poo poo didn't work. 2 - At least 20% of the people tortured turned out to be innocent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wonder where, exactly, future historians will say "here, this point, is where Americans abandoned the rule of law." July 4, 1776  More seriously, when after that point would you say we adopted the rule of law?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In your mind who should they charge then? The torturers themselves? The psychologists running the program? John Yoo? President Bush? Everyone involved from the person who blended the hummus on up? Hummus masher right on up. That one interrogator who told the detainee they'd have to kill him because they could never let the world find out what they'd done to him damned them all. They knew what they were doing was terrible and illegal. There's more than enough culpability to prosecute every single one of those assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wonder where, exactly, future historians will say "here, this point, is where Americans abandoned the rule of law." September 8, 1974. Ford pardoning Nixon removed the last shred of belief that American leaders might not be above the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:They knew what they were doing was terrible and illegal. There's more than enough culpability to prosecute every single one of those assholes. You realize they were told explicitly that what they were doing wasn't illegal and the DoJ wrote out the legal reasoning why it was legal right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/12/08/the-debate-about-torture-were-not-having-exploitation/quote:Then it raises the really horrible possibility that Cheney pushed torture because it would produce the stories he wanted told. It would be difficult to distinguish whether Cheney believed this stuff and therefore that’s what the torture produced or whether Cheney wanted these stories told and that’s what the torture produced. I find the possibilities raised in this article really interesting. I think the idea that the torture architects specifically wanted to produce false information a big overreach, but bureaucratically speaking, also kind of irrelevant. If you create an interrogation apparatus designed to gather very specific intelligence which you "know" to be true, and then employ methods with a popular reputation for effectiveness, but which actually are most effective at producing false confessions, created by people who aren't experts in interrogation, you'll produce a lot of misinformation that flatters the beliefs of those in power. It's reminiscent of a witch trial. Whether witches actually exist or not is irrelevant when the people in charge of the interrogations are convinced of their existence, and employing tactics that produce false confessions, which reinforces the legitimacy of the witch trials in the eyes of the interrogator and public. Cheney's paranoia is at this point legendary. He's the guy that parroted the idea that a 1% chance of a terrorist attack should be treated as an 100% chance, he's the guy who has repeated the worst myths of the Iraq War to this very day, and he is one of the major figures that pushed for the creation of the CIA EIT protocols. Now we find that the CIA torture program produced reams of bad intelligence that flattered this viewpoint. I don't think this is a coincidence. I think the CIA and torture supporters have been so adamant about the effectiveness of the program because, from their perspective, at the time, it was effective. It did produce intelligence that no other method produced. It made amazing links possible. The problem is that those links weren't real, but they treated those results as real for so long that they simply can't let go, because doing so now opens them up to criticism, both internal and external. To some extent, they're lying, but if you were a part of this program and it's "successes", I'm sure there's also the sense that on the whole the program was doing good things, especially if you were shielded from the day-to-day realities. To do otherwise would be to admit that a central part of your life's work was a gross, incompetent error with a terrible human cost. The implications of this are chilling, beyond the simple facts of US torture. The idea that our post-9/11 intelligence apparatus is so grossly incompetent, and subject to the whims and fancies of bureaucrats and politicians, is grotesque. Yet when you look at the combination of Iraq intelligence and planning failures, and the sheer incompetence of the US enhanced interrogation program, it seems like the Bush administration was completely, utterly out of it's depth. Torture is evil, but it seems like the Bush Administration wasn't cynical and amoral so much as paranoid and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
The Holocaust was legal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
This isn't news, but this ad popped up... They're hiring guys!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize they were told explicitly that what they were doing wasn't illegal and the DoJ wrote out the legal reasoning why it was legal right? C'mon man, this is only 12 pages into the report, which I'm assuming you've read since you're so engaged in this debate. quote:CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been e: And this section is also relevant. quote:#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department ofJustice, Papercut fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize they were told explicitly that what they were doing wasn't illegal and the DoJ wrote out the legal reasoning why it was legal right? Then why did that interrogator admit to the detainee that the world could never find out? For funsies? What interrogation purpose did that admission serve? If he wanted to terrorize the detainee into thinking he'd never get out alive, he could have, i don't know, locked him in a coffin for 300 hours and told him he'd never get out alive, which happens to be a Real Life Thing They Did. Perhaps these fairly intelligent psychopaths, much like pretty much anyone who has ever read these memos, knew they were self-serving fig leaves written by yes men interested in being rewarded by the insanely partisan administration that plucked them out of the federalist society to write the memos in the first place. On the other hand, if you're sticking with "nah, I paid my lawyer to say it was okay, therefore it is," cool I've got some pretty lucrative crimes to go get okayed by a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize they were told explicitly that what they were doing wasn't illegal and the DoJ wrote out the legal reasoning why it was legal right? They were told that what they were doing was explicitly illegal both domestically and internationally, but could be considered a justifiable breach of a specific domestic law* due to "a novel application of the necessity defense". *18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A posted:(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:57
|
|
