The CIA Brutally Tortured and Murdered Captives for No Reason: The Thread

[The Fallen]

No, it's not horribly biased.

The problem is you seem to not realise that if you don't believe torture actually works, then you answer no regardless. Along with the people who think torture is bad even if it does work.

That torture is for gaining important information is implicit in the use of torture in the first place. That's the reason the CIA gives for it's use here. That's the use that's relevant. (It's also the reason almost always given for it's use generally)

What the question demonstrates is that Americans are totally ok with torture. At worst, it conflates those ok with torture with straight out sadists but that's a distinction irrelevant to the point. That point being that americans are pretty much ok with the use of torture.

Like, fundamentally, you seem to not get that "Well, torture is normally bad, but it's ok if it's for important information" is a distinction that is utterly irrelevant.

The problem, Shryke, is that I don't think the average American is sophisticated enough to get the implication of the question.

But I agree that answering yes to the question means they're OK with torture. Even if the question is a bit misleading.

Never underestimate the ignorance of America.

[Shryke]

The problem, Shryke, is that I don't think the average American is sophisticated enough to get the implication of the question.

But I agree that answering yes to the question means they're OK with torture. Even if the question is a bit misleading.

Never underestimate the ignorance of America.

The implications are irrelevant.

Ok, lemme try to explain this more clearly in a longer form:

What would be the difference in results between "Is the use of torture ever justified?" and "Is the use of torture ever justified to gain important information?" on the survey? Like, how would it shift the results of the question? Who would answer one thing to one question and another thing to the other?

And the answer is that if you add the "to gain important information" caveat to the question, you shift people from saying "never torture" to "yeah, sure, torture". That's actually clarifying the pro-torture numbers since you are shifting people who said no to torture when what they really meant was "yes to torture sometimes" from the no to the yes side.

The distinction between "pro-torture" and "pro-torture but only when it's really important" is irrelevant. Because the excuse for torture is always that it's really important. That's exactly how it was justified in this case and will be in the future. That's why the CIA spent so much time lying about how important it was.

To sum up, if someone says "No" to the vanilla question and then "Yes" when you add a dollop of ticking-time-bomb hypothetical bullshit, they are pro-torture.

[Prince of the North]

No, it's not horribly biased.

The problem is you seem to not realise that if you don't believe torture actually works, then you answer no regardless. Along with the people who think torture is bad even if it does work.

The problem you don't seem to realize is that it's the difference between phrasing a question such that it doesn't sound so bad (i.e. the torture is used "to get important info")and simply phrasing the question in such a way that it actually measures what it's purporting to measure. Namely, respondents' opinion on whether torture of suspected terrorists can ever be justified?

Also, what of those asked the question who may not yet have a solid opinion on whether torture works? How might the phrase "used to obtain important information" effect their answer?

That torture is for gaining important information is implicit in the use of torture in the first place. That's the reason the CIA gives for it's use here. That's the use that's relevant. (It's also the reason almost always given for it's use generally)

Ah, if that's the case then there really was no reason to include that biasing phrase in the question at all. But, of course, they did. Now that could be either because they didn't give a shit about writing a bad poll question or it could have been because the pollsters actually wanted to influence respondents' perceptions with it (I lean toward the former) but it's still a bad question either way.

Again, the question included the qualifying language "used to obtain important information". That "implicitly" suggests torture actually works. Not that it "might" work or the CIA thinks it works. It's a horribly biased, invalid (doesn't measure what it's presented as measuring) question.

What the question demonstrates is that Americans are totally ok with torture. At worst, it conflates those ok with torture with straight out sadists but that's a distinction irrelevant to the point. That point being that americans are pretty much ok with the use of torture.

Nope. What that particular terrible poll question demonstrates is that Americans are "totally ok" with justifying torture of suspected terrorists if it's "used to obtain important information". As TrueMetis asked above, I also wonder what the result would have been if that biasing/qualifying phrase had simply been left out of the question? Especially if it's implicit anyway, as you said.

Like, fundamentally, you seem to not get that "Well, torture is normally bad, but it's ok if it's for important information" is a distinction that is utterly irrelevant.

Um, I never said or even implied this and have no idea where you pulled it from. I very much agree with you here. My point is simply that this particular poll question was written in such a way as to create that exact distinction in respondents' minds simply because it contained that innocent little, completely unnecessary (as you said) phrase "to obtain important information".

[Shryke]

See above. I literally answered your question again. And you still aren't getting it.

If you think torture is ok "when important information is on the line", you are still pro-torture.

The distinction between "I'm ok with torture" and "I'm ok with torture, but only when it's super duper important" DOES NOT MATTER. Both are pro-torture stances.

This is very simple.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I hate the idea of torture. And the outcomes of the report sit very uncomfortably with me.

That said, I seriously doubt the honesty of those who say they are against torture under any circumstances whatsoever. If, for example, someone knew the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb that is about to explode somewhere in a city, or to take it to a hypothetical extreme for arguments sake, knows the launch code for the only nuclear missile that can divert an incoming asteroid that would otherwise wipe out the human race, I find it hard to believe that most people would be against using any means necessary to extract the information.

In short, if the stakes are high enough, surely the judgement of what is acceptable to gain the information would change accordingly.

[Fragile Bird]

I hate the idea of torture. And the outcomes of the report sit very uncomfortably with me.

That said, I seriously doubt the honesty of those who say they are against torture under any circumstances whatsoever. If, for example, someone knew the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb that is about to explode somewhere in a city, or to take it to a hypothetical extreme for arguments sake, knows the launch code for the only nuclear missile that can divert an incoming asteroid that would otherwise wipe out the human race, I find it hard to believe that most people would be against using any means necessary to extract the information.

In short, if the stakes are high enough, surely the judgement of what is acceptable to gain the information would change accordingly.

The problem I have with that is that a person willing to explode an nuclear bomb is not going to tell the truth under torture. I'd rather see them use drugs or lie detectors.

[Summah]

I think you have to draw the line at no torture under any circumstances, as someone else said earlier in the read, people are always going to find and important reason, so the only way to prevent it is not to allow it at all. I think perhaps being complicit in torture may also skew one's sense of what constitutes important. Furthermore, I think history and current events tell us that attempting to justify torture does lead to good results or valid justifications.

FNR, and besides the immorality the biggest problem with your scenario is that torture is not a good way to get information, not to mention the stupid movie plot referenced.

I would really like to see people charged with war crimes, reparations for the people tortured and all detainees, and a complete overhaul of the intelligence agencies of the US, but none of that is likely to happen.

[Prince of the North]

See above. I literally answered your question again. And you still aren't getting it.

If you think torture is ok "when important information is on the line", you are still pro-torture.

The distinction between "I'm ok with torture" and "I'm ok with torture, but only when it's super duper important" DOES NOT MATTER. Both are pro-torture stances.

This is very simple.

Of course they're both pro-torture stances but I think you're wrong that the distinction doesn't matter. While people answering yes to the questions "do you think torture of suspected terrorists to obtain important information is ever justified?" or "do you think torture of suspected terrorists is ever justified?" are all pro-torture their reasons for being so may not be the same. A couple of questions: do you think that the inclusion of "to obtain important information" in the question could imply to respondents that the torture is actually effective? And, if so, could that implication influence their opinion about whether it can be justified?

My beef has always been with the wording/presentation/treatment of that particular question. It's terrible for two very important reasons: 1) both the 538 article you linked and the Pew Research link contained in that article make the incredibly lazy mistake of asking people, literally, "Do you think torture of suspected terrorists to obtain important information can ever be justified?" and then presenting it as a measure of people's overall opinion about whether torture of suspected terrorists can ever be justified and 2) the inclusion of "to obtain important information" potentially biases the question because it implies torture works to respondents.

In the first case, they are not the same thing and should not be treated as if they are (the way the results to that question have been presented in those two articles actually makes it quite invalid) and, in the second case, it places the question within a sort of "ticking time bomb" context rather than simply asking about torture in general.

[Prince of the North]

I hate the idea of torture. And the outcomes of the report sit very uncomfortably with me.

That said, I seriously doubt the honesty of those who say they are against torture under any circumstances whatsoever. If, for example, someone knew the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb that is about to explode somewhere in a city, or to take it to a hypothetical extreme for arguments sake, knows the launch code for the only nuclear missile that can divert an incoming asteroid that would otherwise wipe out the human race, I find it hard to believe that most people would be against using any means necessary to extract the information.

In short, if the stakes are high enough, surely the judgement of what is acceptable to gain the information would change accordingly.

Completely agreed. That's why I dislike that the above question being discussed was placed in that sort of "ticking time bomb" context. Thus, it doesn't actually measure people's opinion on the use of torture in general.

[Dicer]

FNR, and besides the immorality the biggest problem with your scenario is that torture is not a good way to get information, not to mention the stupid movie plot referenced.

Basically this. I linked to an article in the beginning of this thread which detailed some Josef Mengele type scientists who actually did experiments on these prisoners with respect to Enhanced interrogation techniques. The APA (American Psychological Association) rewrote and bend their rule book on ethics so that these scientists could conduct their experiments. They can't publish their results (But were paid a lot of money), but their conclusion was that TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. That's a scientific result reached after performing experiments not from CIA reports or CIA agents. I don't think we can really dispute this anymore. It should be fact: TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

So if I ask someone if they agree with torture to get information about a ticking nuclear bomb, the answer should still be no. It is both immoral and ineffective. There's no point to it other than to degrade, dehumanize and break down the enemy. Sometimes people torture to show that they can or because the enemy fought back. Was there any point to the Abu Ghraib torture other than to dehumanize and degrade the prisoners?

I see no point to the continued torture and illegal incarceration of folks at Guantanamo bay other than to create more enemies in the muslim world.

British MPs demand investigation into MI-6's role in rendition and torture:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/british-mps-demand-inquiry-cia-abductions

[Free Northman Reborn]

Summah

I posted the first example that came to mind. The fact that it resembles a "movie plot" is irrelevant to the point being made. Which is that if the stakes are high enough, surely the judgement of what is acceptable has to change.

And I utterly disagree that just because someone is a fanatic, or evil, that they won't crack under intense pain. Pretty much anyone has a breaking point. The idea of Rambo types who can resist all torture because they are so tough is not realistic.

[TrueMetis]

Summah

I posted the first example that came to mind. The fact that it resembles a "movie plot" is irrelevant to the point being made. Which is that if the stakes are high enough, surely the judgement of what is acceptable has to change.

And I utterly disagree that just because someone is a fanatic, or evil, that they won't crack under intense pain. Pretty much anyone has a breaking point. The idea of Rambo types who can resist all torture because they are so tough is not realistic.

That's actually kind of the point, they will crack and say whatever it takes to stop the pain. Doesn't mean they'll tell the truth.

[Free Northman Reborn]

True Metis

But that simply means that the scenario where this option is appropriate, needs to be of such a nature that the information can be verified very quickly. Such as if he says the bomb is in a cupboard at Elementary School X, you can check if its there or not very quickly. And confront him with the results.

[SeanF]

Torture can work if i) you're pretty sure the victim has the information you want ii) it can be quickly verified - eg torturing a bank manager for the combination to the bank's safe. That's similar to the "ticking bomb" situation.

This report, OTOH, suggests that was going on was unrestrained brutality which served no useful purpose.

[Lord Lannister]

Ah yes, another fine display of people who say they love America but clearly hate Americans. :rolleyes:

[straits]

That said, I seriously doubt the honesty of those who say they are against torture under any circumstances whatsoever. If, for example, someone knew the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb that is about to explode somewhere in a city, or to take it to a hypothetical extreme for arguments sake, knows the launch code for the only nuclear missile that can divert an incoming asteroid that would otherwise wipe out the human race, I find it hard to believe that most people would be against using any means necessary to extract the information.

Or a less extreme hypothetical: if you don't stand for torture and human right violations, you will never have to face an enemy angry enough to blow up a city (or Earth)

[Enguerrand]

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Thucydides, Melian dialogues 400 bc

Really those who can and have the ability to kill, exploit and abuse others with impunity will do so, that's human nature. American Imperialism is just obnoxious with the endless spew of freedom, truth and justice and grandstanding at the expense of others who feels human rights is only applicable to their peer group but unlike themselves doesn't have the power to keep their butchers beyond accountability.

Diane Feinstein's "The report can and does say to our people that America is big enough to admit when it's wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes,"

Sincere admittance of wrongdoing means accountability. It's says it all when even the people making the report sweeps everything under the carpet beats on the same empty nationalist drum as the abusers.

[straits]

Diane Feinstein's "The report can and does say to our people that America is big enough to admit when it's wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes,"

Sincere admittance of wrongdoing means accountability. It's says it all when even the people making the report sweeps everything under the carpet beats on the same empty nationalist drum as the abusers.

I think open self-criticism without accountability and due justice is worse than silence in that it allows for some kind of self-congratulatory excuses ("at least we owned up/we're not like them/ we don't think it's good")

[Shryke]

Nah, silence is far worse in that it precludes the ability for justice to even happen.

Diane Feinstein's "The report can and does say to our people that America is big enough to admit when it's wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes,"

Sincere admittance of wrongdoing means accountability. It's says it all when even the people making the report sweeps everything under the carpet beats on the same empty nationalist drum as the abusers.

???

Feinstein is not sweeping anything under the carpet. She and the people who made the report just aren't in any position to do more then make a report and hope someone else does something about it.

[straits]

Nah, silence is far worse in that it precludes the ability for justice to even happen.

you're right about that. but if justice doesn't happen (or not soon enough for it to matter to the victims), all it's going to do is pave the way for the same atrocities to be committed with less hindrance, and more openly