Comments on: Empirical Evidence about Torture

By: what?

what? — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:29:30 +0000

Ever thought that the General might be dissembling for PR purposes? Don’t be naive.

Indeed, the CIA according to Brian Ross makes contrary assertions:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/?print=1

If your empirical evidence consists of only selective sources to the exclusion of those that refute your preconceived ideas about the efficacy of torture, then you’re not much of an empiricist. Rather an ideologue.

By: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Empirical Evidence About Torture

Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Empirical Evidence About Torture — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:33:50 +0000

[...] Crooked Timber on a general’s conclusion that the empirical evidence of the past five years doesn’t support the usefulness of torture. [...]

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:15:51 +0000

I was asked to define what human dignity is “simply, so anyone can understand”, I couldn’t.

That’s why we have judges and juries – to decide if something is ‘reasonable’ or ‘excessive’ or ‘unbecoming’ or an ‘outrage’.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:02:01 +0000

The Israeli Supreme Court, when it ruled that torture is illegal, dealt with the ticking time bomb scenario definitively. As it explained, torture constitutes the crime of battery – an unpermitted touching that causes injury. What makes it torture is that the torturer has a certain intent in committing the battery, but that doesn’t justify the crime. Now, it is a defense to battery that the defendant committed the act to protect a third person. For example, if A is about to shoot B and C knocks A down, C may defend against the charge that he committed a battery on A by showing that he did so to protect B. So, in the event of a genuine ticking time bomb situation, the policeman who commits an act of torture will later defend himself by showing that he acted to protect the lives of third persons. But this a defense to a specific charge in the context of a specific event, not an a priori blanket justification of all torture.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:14:49 +0000

Sort of following up with post #3 and #4, the biggest talking point I’ve heard in the last few days is exactly how do you determine what an outrage upon human dignity is? Bush actually said that it needs to be re-written because “it’s vague – what does that mean?” Rather to my chagrin, when I was asked to define what human dignity is “simply, so anyone can understand”, I couldn’t.

Can anyone? Or is the claim that, for example, a female interrogator violates the human dignity of some people a valid claim?

By: roy belmont

roy belmont — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:58:24 +0000

The official given reason for torture being the extraction of information, ipso facto – torture doesn’t work.
But wait, are there are other motives? Other reasons to torture?
Let’s see…
“…an uncaring administration bent on revenge…” hmmm. Define “administration” as used in that phrase.
Something that’s rarely allowed into polite debates on Iraq is the possibility that the current state of affairs there was intended all along.
Bush thus sufficing nicely as sin-eater; and – quickly now – off he goes.
Revenge may well be a motive worth pursuing as cause for these heinous issues, but you’ll have to dig a little deeper than that mindless scapegoat currently twisting in the wind over Pennsylvania Ave. to get to the heart of things.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:01:36 +0000

Here is a website that provides an easy way to write to your senators to tell them not to give a free pass for torture and war crimes (from JustForeignPolicy.org)

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/warcrimes091906.html

By: Saint Fnordius

Saint Fnordius — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:57:23 +0000

The actual lessons from Algiers were that torture was a detriment to getting information. It resulted in so much false information that the actual bits won were lost in the heap of lies. It also lowered the willingness of witnesses to come forward, since they were afraid of getting tortured as well. Torture also awakes an instinctive resistance in the interrogated subject, something known since Aesop’s time (see the fable of the wind and the sun).

So in the end torture hurts the ability to gather information, as it brings forth more lies, takes longer to get information, and erases the desire to cooperate.

This was all documented in the US Army’s interrogation manuals before, but the lesson was lost when untrained individuals were assigned, led by an uncaring administration bent on revenge.

By: roy belmont

roy belmont — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:23:56 +0000

Torture’s immoral unless, you know, it works.
It’s only moral if it works.
If it doesn’t work it’s immoral and also if there’s another way that doesn’t hurt so bad you should use that first unless there’s a ticking noise somewhere. But only then.
So, you know, it’s not okay, unless, you know, you have to.
Then it’s okay.
Cowardice is actually a survival trait, did you know that?
Cowardice works.
Most of the things people have traditionally considered to be immoral actually, you know, work.

* * *

Arguing with the men and boys who have been running the Iraq debacle/fiasco on the merits of their given reasons for doing anything is, you know, lame, and a particularly nauseating form of privileged denial.
Maybe, just maybe, they’re being dishonest about torture too?
Why they’re doing it and stuff? Maybe it’s not for why they’re saying?
Huh?
You think?

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:22:42 +0000

Well, all right, let me clarify: forget Algiers, I have no idea whether torture does or doesn’t work; and I suspect it might work under some circumstances.

I was trying to say what Pedro said in #13: it doesn’t matter, it’s not the point, it shouldn’t be.

To come out against cannibalism you don’t have to begin pretending that human flesh is poisonous, there are other reasons.

By: calmo

calmo — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:19:31 +0000

If it were possible to conceal the activity so that torture was never witnessed or discovered, my case that it is primarily about population control rather than administering punishment to some individuals, falls apart.
But the message is always leaked or suspected with disappearances, no?
It is in the state’s interest to demonstrate its power to obtain compliant behavior it cannot obtain otherwise, yes?
This torture could happen to you, fellow citizen. So respect your place and relative position you dog or face the consequences. Isn’t this the principal feature, the political dynamic, of state sponsored torture?
The sociology provides the framework for understanding otherwise merely wanton human abuse.

By: BCist

BCist — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:58:02 +0000

Just a point of clairification:

“Godwin’s Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet “discussions”. It reads, according to the Jargon File:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:02:15 +0000

We knew before the War on Terror that torture doesn’t work. It’s not like this was all some big experiment and now it’s finally settled.

Or maybe one of the things that changed on 9/11 was that suddenly torture became a magical truth-producing ritual rather than an offense against the human dignity of the victim and the perpetrator alike. Curse me and my pre-9/11 mindset!

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:42:33 +0000

So will we say that pro-torture people are ignorant, vicious, or both?

By: soru

soru — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:59:21 +0000

a policeman who breaks the law in a situation like that is unlikely to be charged and even less likely to be convicted

I fear you may be under-estimating the willingness of certain parties to launch a clearly unreasonable prosecution with the goal of undermining public support for the law.