3 ms·
While I agree that Americans have benefited (and continue to benefit of course) from a huge range of morally dubious actions by its government, I have quite a f
by lhl 11y ago
While I agree that Americans have benefited (and continue to benefit of course) from a huge range of morally dubious actions by its government, I have quite a few reservations about the rest of your comment.
The main objection is to your belief that morally repugnant actions must benefit the American public (and their de facto consent). Neither of those statements hold. There is a long tradition of those with power and no accountability doing many vile things even when it's obviously counterproductive or there is no greater benefit.
Without corrective feedback, political/personal incentives often misalign with larger social good, and there are few corrective measures that can be taken. Just because there is short-term benefit to some does not mean it's any good for the American public. One only needs to look at the history of CIA operations and blowback to see that played out over and over. Even when not explicitly clandestine, these things can flow from pure economic logic - one only needs to follow the development of the military or prison industrial complexes to see that in action.
I'll also take exception to your description of torture. Any reading on the effectiveness of torture will show consensus that not only is it not an effectiveness information collection method, it also makes future collection more difficult both from the source and in strategic/game theoretic terms. The costs far outweigh the benefits.
Torture is great for getting things you want to hear, whether they are accurate or not, which goes a long way towards explaining its use. That and those misaligned personal incentives. And the banality of evil.
- xnull2guest 11y agoI don't think I believe that repugnant actions must benefit the American public - just that broadly, when rounding, it does in practice. I do not believe that it has or deserves American consent. Regarding getting the intelligence you 'want' out of torture - we saw that in action as recently as the start of the Iraq war when tortured informants, under duress, gave intelligence (unreliable of course), that the Bush administration wanted to hear - Iraq and Bin Laden were both connected to the 9/11 attacks. This was used, even though the CIA warned the administration that the intelligence wasn't actionable, as some of the key evidence used to justify the war in Iraq that the Administration wanted to engage in anyway. But from what I can tell and have read, torture is quite effective when there is a means of verifying specifics (location of hideouts, numbers of people, names of those in certain roles, dates of events), which our intelligence apparatus does have in some capacity. No intelligence information is without bias/counterintelligence/deception and in fact all HUMINT (even honest and helpful ones) - intelligence agencies know this most of all and have mechanisms to counter them. I agree we should be skeptical of torture for a number of reasons. And as other have said, "that torture is effective is KGB argument." Effectiveness is not a justification anyway. But it is my understanding that torture, when used properly, can be effective. Where my belief may not have very good support is probably here. I believe that broadly, the use of torture by America is effective use of torture.