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

[Shryke]

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?

No. That doesn't even make sense. All it does is raise the stakes. It just suggests the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario that is so often used to justify torture.

And because that excuse is so often used, it's important to ask the question that way because if you don't raise that spectre you aren't getting an accurate reading of the people's views on torture. Because, again, "torture is ok when it's necessary" is most definitely a group you want to identify.

The reasons why people are pro-torture can be quite varied, but that variance will, firstly, still not be entirely caught by your alternative question and, secondly, is not relevant to getting solid numbers on how many americans are pro-torture. It is, as I keep saying, a distinction irrelevant to the point at hand.

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.

Except your beef here makes absolutely no sense.

I'll highlight exactly why in your post right here:

presenting it as a measure of people's overall opinion about whether torture of suspected terrorists can ever be justified

If we are measuring whether people think torture can EVER be justified, then we are most certainly measuring whether it can be justified in the case where important information is at stake. That is the meaning of "ever" in this sentence after all.

If they are measuring whether people think torture is justified under any circumstance, then you can't complain that them explicitly bringing up all circumstances is biasing the question.

[Shryke]

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

No it doesn't. At worst, it's the same as silence in this respect. And it's got every opportunity to be better.

[Knight Of Winter]

In these discussions about effectiveness of torture, I'm inevitably reminded of a certain period of human history where torture was widespread and common - age of inquisition. The principle was always the same - defendant was charged with ridiculous charges, and then tortured to confess them. And it "worked" - under horrible torture people confessed literally everything inquisitors wanted them to confess - from witchcraft and practicing dark magic to consorting with the devil. As it turns out, person under torture will say anything - no matter how false and ridiculous - to stop the torture, even for a little.

Meanwhile, world has realized that and moved onwards. Apart from CIA, as it would seem.

[Solmyr]

In these discussions about effectiveness of torture, I'm inevitably reminded of a certain period of human history where torture was widespread and common - age of inquisition. The principle was always the same - defendant was charged with ridiculous charges, and then tortured to confess them. And it "worked" - under horrible torture people confessed literally everything inquisitors wanted them to confess - from witchcraft and practicing dark magic to consorting with the devil. As it turns out, person under torture will say anything - no matter how false and ridiculous - to stop the torture, even for a little.

Meanwhile, world has realized that and moved onwards. Apart from CIA, as it would seem.

So ... what you're saying is that torture used to work, but then we forgot how to do it properly :dunno:. And now that the CIA has finally stumbled upon the long-lost art of inquisition and is on the verge of bringing back the days of glorious witchhunt, some soft-hearted humanitarians are impeding it? I say toss them onto the stretcher and see how far their opposition holds :pirate:!

[Shryke]

In these discussions about effectiveness of torture, I'm inevitably reminded of a certain period of human history where torture was widespread and common - age of inquisition. The principle was always the same - defendant was charged with ridiculous charges, and then tortured to confess them. And it "worked" - under horrible torture people confessed literally everything inquisitors wanted them to confess - from witchcraft and practicing dark magic to consorting with the devil. As it turns out, person under torture will say anything - no matter how false and ridiculous - to stop the torture, even for a little.

Meanwhile, world has realized that and moved onwards. Apart from CIA, as it would seem.

This seems to be based on a knowledge of history that I suspect is not knowledge at all but merely osmosis of random cultural "facts".

[Inigima]

So ... what you're saying is that torture used to work, but then we forgot how to do it properly :dunno:. And now that the CIA has finally stumbled upon the long-lost art of inquisition and is on the verge of bringing back the days of glorious witchhunt, some soft-hearted humanitarians are impeding it? I say toss them onto the stretcher and see how far their opposition holds :pirate:!

How on earth is this your takeaway

[Larry of the Lawn]

I don't know how we've avoided another 911 in the last 6 years without the CIA torturing people. If it was so effective you'd think there would be terrorists plots hatching left and right since Obama took office. Strange that it didn't happen.

[YoungGriff89]

How on earth is this your takeaway

I think he's either trolling or being sarcastic.

[Solmyr]

How on earth is this your takeaway

Have you been to Sarcasmia? It's a magical place where debate and bitter humour mingle together ;).

P.S. I thought the pirate-emote would be enough of a cue to alert readers they are travelling Sarcasmia.

[DanteGabriel]

I hate to say it but Shryke might be right. It's one thing to do shady shit; it's another thing entirely to lie to Congress. Oversight is meaningless if the people charged with it are kept in the dark.

Suddenly Burn Notice's absurd rogue government intelligence agency doesn't seem so far-fetched.

I thought it had been reasonably well established that the CIA has been pretty rogue-y since at least the Kennedy years.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I thought it had been reasonably well established that the CIA has been pretty rogue-y since at least the Kennedy years.

I think it's been not so rogue-y and more doing the dirty work of American empire at the bidding of elected executives. American policy has been fucking awful, it's not the CIA off on its own being fucking awful, however secretive and insular it might be.

[Inigima]

That's the thing about the CIA -- they have so much power that if they decide to do something there isn't a whole hell of a lot anyone can do to stop them. That can't possibly be a healthy thing for a country.

[Knight Of Winter]

This seems to be based on a knowledge of history that I suspect is not knowledge at all but merely osmosis of random cultural "facts".

Care to explain?

[TrackerNeil]

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.

The problem with hypotheticals is that, unlike real life, they are completely certain. The investigator knows there is a nuke, she knows the suspect is in on the plot, she knows the suspect has the launch code, etc., etc. Real life is full of uncertainties. In most cases, the investigator may have no idea what specific plot a terrorist group is up to, who their members are, or which of those members knows anything worthwhile. So while we can talk about fantasy situations, I prefer to restrict the conversation to the real world.

However, I'll say this much: I think that anyone who tortures, for any reason, should face a jury. No exceptions. If the torturer was indeed in your fantasy ticking time-bomb scenario, well, he can argue his case and the jury, if convinced, can acquit. But by my lights, no one who tortures walks away without a trial.

[DanteGabriel]

If I were President, the first executive order I'd sign is to forbid further use of the stupid-ass "ticking time bomb" scenario in discussions of torture. So tired of that stale, lazy, Hollywoody justification for barbarism.

[Inigima]

Even the phrase is hackneyed. TV pundits appear to be constitutionally incapable of not using it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

If I were President, the first executive order I'd sign is to forbid further use of the stupid-ass "ticking time bomb" scenario in discussions of torture. So tired of that stale, lazy, Hollywoody justification for barbarism.

Besides, that kind if terrorist typically uses water-puzzles and presidential trivia to defuse the bomb, things which are better solved without torture.

[Weeping Sore]

However, I'll say this much: I think that anyone who tortures, for any reason, should face a jury. No exceptions. If the torturer was indeed in your fantasy ticking time-bomb scenario, well, he can argue his case and the jury, if convinced, can acquit. But by my lights, no one who tortures walks away without a trial.

No, if there really were a ticking nuke, the torturer could feel justified. But he would still be guilty. The means would still constitute a crime even if the ends were desirable.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

No, if there really were a ticking nuke, the torturer could feel justified. But he would still be guilty. The means would still constitute a crime even if the ends were desirable.

Yea, but I bet you'd see a jury nullification in the fantastically unlikely event of the ticking nuclear bomb torturer being brought to trial.

[YoungGriff89]

There's a 9/11 widow on CNN right now talking about how torture should absolutely be used to keep Americans safe and we shouldn't even be debating it. Has anybody told her it didn't work?