3 ms·

rayiner isn't the one being disingenuous. CIA interrogation techniques are not the equivalent of the police beating up someone in a cell, the purpose is to gain

rayiner isn't the one being disingenuous. CIA interrogation techniques are not the equivalent of the police beating up someone in a cell, the purpose is to gain valuable information. It isn't done for revenge or in situations where the stakes are anything less than the life and death of innocent people. Someone who has information on a literal ticking time bomb is the very definition of a threat to the public. So is someone who can reveal information about the plans of a warlord to subjugate a tribal village, or sell people into slavery or provide financial resources to known killers. If US intelligence isn't willing to hurt bad people before they can hurt innocent people, then what the hell is the point of any of it? You've drawn a very false equivalency. The moral high ground is very valuable real estate indeed, and the US does hurt itself by doing things that reflect poorly in the eyes of the global public. But we're rightfully and pragmatically more concerned about artillery and soldiers occupying plain old fashioned military high ground. We interrogate to prevent people who openly wish us harm from gaining the power to turn their words into deeds. You can always earn cool points by pointing out historical atrocities, but in the end what matters is that we're still here, alive and prospering. Do you honestly believe that if the US government always behaved like perfect angels that N Korea or Cuba would suddenly listen to our moral lectures? That our behavior would somehow inspire them to change the fundamental cultural mores that come from decades of national poverty and the mindset that comes along with it? Because I don't think it will. Human rights violations will still exist even if we behave with moral perfection. Sometimes the best way to stop the bad guys isn't to set a good example, but instead to waterboard someone until he tells you where to send a SEAL team. For better or worse, the US has the sanctioned role of providing security for the world. If that means we have to strip someone naked and throw them against a wall then so be it. It's unpleasant, but it sure as hell beats the alternatives.

anigbrowl 12y ago
CIA interrogation techniques are not the equivalent of the police beating up someone in a cell, the purpose is to gain valuable information. Much as police violence in custody has often been defended with the argument that the police were attempting to obtain information that would lead to a conviction. It isn't done for revenge or in situations where the stakes are anything less than the life and death of innocent people. Someone who has information on a literal ticking time bomb is the very definition of a threat to the public. Ostensibly, but for one thing there is usually no actual ticking time bomb because we don't live in the universe of 24, and for another if there was a ticking time bomb there'd be no way to protect against misinformation about its location until it was too late. The TTB argument implicitly assumes that intelligence gained through torture will be correct and actionable, but this isn't backed up by evidence. If the bomb is on West 63rd street and the torture subject directs you to East 47th street, you won't know you've been lied to until you get there and find out there is no bomb. Conversely, what if the person does not actually know what you want to know, like the 26 detainees mentioned in the report who were picked up despite not being suitable targets for interrogation? When they keep saying they don't know where the ticking time bomb is, how do you tell that they're not just holding out on you? For better or worse, the US has the sanctioned role of providing security for the world. Hmmm, no. As I outlined above, its in our interests to hold such a position at present. I think you need to think a bit longer about this, because your views on this subject seem rather shallow.
rhizome 12y ago
It's unpleasant, but it sure as hell beats the alternatives. Actually, it doesn't, as the CIA admits. So much so that they had to lie about its effectiveness.

anigbrowl 12y ago

CIA interrogation techniques are not the equivalent of the police beating up someone in a cell, the purpose is to gain valuable information. Much as police violence in custody has often been defended with the argument that the police were attempting to obtain information that would lead to a conviction. It isn't done for revenge or in situations where the stakes are anything less than the life and death of innocent people. Someone who has information on a literal ticking time bomb is the very definition of a threat to the public. Ostensibly, but for one thing there is usually no actual ticking time bomb because we don't live in the universe of 24, and for another if there was a ticking time bomb there'd be no way to protect against misinformation about its location until it was too late. The TTB argument implicitly assumes that intelligence gained through torture will be correct and actionable, but this isn't backed up by evidence. If the bomb is on West 63rd street and the torture subject directs you to East 47th street, you won't know you've been lied to until you get there and find out there is no bomb. Conversely, what if the person does not actually know what you want to know, like the 26 detainees mentioned in the report who were picked up despite not being suitable targets for interrogation? When they keep saying they don't know where the ticking time bomb is, how do you tell that they're not just holding out on you? For better or worse, the US has the sanctioned role of providing security for the world. Hmmm, no. As I outlined above, its in our interests to hold such a position at present. I think you need to think a bit longer about this, because your views on this subject seem rather shallow.

rhizome 12y ago

It's unpleasant, but it sure as hell beats the alternatives. Actually, it doesn't, as the CIA admits. So much so that they had to lie about its effectiveness.