We took lessons from the Soviets and Chinese on torture

[Universe Prince]

The terms you work out with Domer might be unique , would there be an advantage in standardising such deals more?

I doubt it.

[Plane]

The terms you work out with Domer might be unique , would there be an advantage in standardising such deals more?

I doubt it.

You have the same right to demand that someone jump thu hoops as anyone elese , and the same right to ignore the hoops .

I think that when there is a good reason to insist on some sort of particular thing , the insistance should come with an explanation of why the thing is a good idea.

3DHS is pretty much a round table with rules pretty loose , being polite is a good idea more often than not , being cogent is a good idea too.

I can imagine an exploration of ideas requireing a narrowly focused track that excludes unimportant distractions and details that are not pertanent , that is going to be difficult to accomplish here.

[gipper]

I never particularly liked the "slippery slope" argument, oft-heard in legal courtrooms, because most of the time one can construct reliable "off ramps" that prevent the downhill momentum from ending in a result you do not want. It just requires hard work to develop and maintain them (the ramps). In the context of a catastrophic event causing the loss of a shocking number of lives (at what point the sheer number becomes "shocking" and therefore insufferable is an open part of the discussion), coupled with a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation, I would have no qualms whatsoever using whatever means are necessary.*

*Accurately, that should read "I would have no qualms empowering a properly-appointed designee to do whatever is necessary." I personally have no tolerance for torture, but some do to the extent that they can maintain their humanity even while inflicting horrible punishments ... or willing volunteer to risk losing their humanity for the greater good.

This introduces two further questions (at least): What is the utility of keeping such interrogation "off the books" or "covert"? And especially in light of that consideration, how do you enforce standards when the chain of command may insist on deniability?

[Plane]

If there is one thing that makes me worry, in the question of Torture , it is the slippery slope we have already come down and the steepness of the slope ahead.

I am pleased that there is a lot of public reluctance to support cruelty , and that there is a public discussion on the subject of how much cruelty might be permissable , needed , or forbidden , useless.

It is experience and discussion that determines the public tolerance level and the public tolerance level that produces resistance to the slide down the slope.

Without the experience of 9-11 we would still be a lot nearer the top of the hill, if there is another very shocking incident I would expect the friction vector on the hill to be reduced again.

There is a balence to be struck , somewhere in between MT's suggestion of serveing diuretic tea to a guy that is embarrased to say he needs to pee , and the extremity of cruelty that full revenge would exact with some multiple of our own loss as the basis of limit , there must be a place on the spectrum or matrix where there is no uneeded cruelty and there is little loss of oppurtunity to know what our captured prisoners can tell.

Is this a job for experts? Do we have psycologists who are dedicated to the extraction of information of intrest to a state from an induvidual? I hope we don't. Such a person would be in violation of the Hippocratic oath very severely and the very concept is scary.

Is this a job for self appointed ametures?  No, very much no, we can't refuse to learn from Abu Graib how badly poor oversight can turn out.

This is a proper subject for public consensus , which will not necessacerily produce the most optimum answer but is very likely to avoid at least the evil that is lurking at the extremes.

[Universe Prince]

You have the same right to demand that someone jump thu hoops as anyone elese , and the same right to ignore the hoops

I hope I'm not demanding hoop jumping, but thanks all the same.

I can imagine an exploration of ideas requireing a narrowly focused track that excludes unimportant distractions and details that are not pertanent

I can imagine that as well, but at the same time, I have a hard time imagining that requires telling other people how they must approach discussing a topic.

[Universe Prince]

coupled with a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation

The problem is, such certainty only exists hypothetically. If the torture were hypothetical, that would be fine. When the torture is real, however, such certainty is nowhere to be found. So what do you, or your properly appointed designee, decide when you face the possibility of a catastrophic event and no certainty that torturing a known terrorist will get you any reliable information?

[gipper]

You would draw on a body of knowledge previously developed to try to judge, possibly through mathematical-like formulae, the reliability of a technique or techniques to produce capitulation, the chance that accurate, actionable information could be extracted from the capitulation, assessment in the keenest way possible of the status of the umbrella investigation, assessment of the certainty of the catastrophic event, assessment of the damage that the event would cause, projection of the longitudinal ramifications of the catastrophe actually occurring, projection of the effect of a "wrong" decision" on future civilized life (e.g., wrong -- not trying (catastrophe occurs): the effects of the catastrophe on future interrogation policy, and much more; wrong -- trying without breaking the subject: the corrosive effects of uncivility perhaps perpetuated but mitigated by the outcry over the catastrophe itself; wrong -- breaking the subject but finding he has nothing to offer or else provides deceptive or useless information: see immediately preceding elaboration; and so on to "right and successful": catastrophe aborted). Beyond my particular ken, there are calculuses and analytical trains that may be able to make these matters more intelligible and usable, which, I suspect, society would opt for (i.e., trying to optimize data in a quite scientific undertaking), all the time informed by every available and helpful value, distilled to a usable philosophy. The basic moral problem as conceived is this: when do you risk the effects of degradation from torture (though please note, like "legitimate" collateral damage from bombing in wartime, say, this may be substantially mitigated by the importance of the given mission) to prevent (as posited) a truly earth-shattering catastrophe taking "x" amounts of lives with all sorts of horrible maiming, "x" being to the limits of your imagination.

[Plane]

The nature of torture is on the cusp of change.

I will soon be possible to cause intense pain with absolutely no phisical damage .

Not too far in the future it my be possible to shut down a persons self disapline temporairily so that they speak every  word in their head but there would be n pain.

Does the nature of the question change as tecnical means become availible to manipulate the mind?

[_JS]

I would not support any type of torture, whether to garner information or not. Nor do I think it is reasonable to re-define "torture" until you make it acceptable to your current situation.

Violating the basic dignity of a human being is unconscionable, even when you believe that person to be responsible for some heinous act.

[sirs]

Violating the basic dignity of a human being is unconscionable, even when you believe that person to be responsible for some heinous act.

Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity

[_JS]

Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity

And that is where you and I differ. I never start stripping anyone of their innate humanity, given to them by God, no matter what they have done (or are alleged to have done).

I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.

[Plane]

coupled with a hypothetical certainty of extracting reliable, actionable information from a known terrorist kingpin through interrogation

The problem is, such certainty only exists hypothetically. If the torture were hypothetical, that would be fine. When the torture is real, however, such certainty is nowhere to be found. So what do you, or your properly appointed designee, decide when you face the possibility of a catastrophic event and no certainty that torturing a known terrorist will get you any reliable information?

There are occasions of certainty .
Some of the captives we have are well identified as leaders of Al Quieda , thus we have a reasonable certainty that these guys were in on plans of destruction tipical of Al Queida.

Foiling such a plan certainly saves lives.

When such certainty is availible do you allow more lattitude?


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity

And that is where you and I differ. I never start stripping anyone of their innate humanity, given to them by God, no matter what they have done (or are alleged to have done).

I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.

When you have a reasonable certainty that you are holding a person who knows the time and place of an ambush or attack you are not makeing this choice only for yourself.

[sirs]

Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity

...I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.

My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form

[_JS]

When you have a reasonable certainty that you are holding a person who knows the time and place of an ambush or attack you are not makeing this choice only for yourself.

An unlikely scenario. Besides, we can play hypotheticals all day. If it is reasonable to assume that the individual who has been captured knows the time and place of a terrorist attack - would it not also be reasonable to assume that his conspirators in this crime will change the details or abort it entirely now that it has been compromised?

[_JS]

Yet for me, someone who was responsibible for some heinous act of murdering innocent women & children, be it in the tens, to hundreds, to thousands, has forfeited their being considered a human being in my book, thus have lost any right to be treated with basic dignity

...I don't really care what other's think, I'd rather die with principles than live without them.

My principles are fine BTW, yet I have no problem calling an animal an animal, even when they're existing in human form

Right, that is why you have to justify it.

That is also why you have to dehumanize the human beings responsible for such actions.

Interesting.