Sources: CIA Used Drill To Coerce Prisoner

[TheDancinMonarch]

This "Conk" questions the effectiveness of torture and the accuracy of the information that those methods supply.

The use of torture or what could be perceived as torture needs to be considered not just from the perspective of the immediate value of the information collected but also from the long-term perspective of how it impacts the U.S. and its enemies or potential enemies. IMO, the use of what is perceived as torture damages our credibility in the world and helps our enemies, the terrorists and tin-pot dictators, by making it easier for them to blame the U.S. for their problems, recruit more terrorists, etc. You might think, "who gives a sh!t" and in the short-term you would be right but we are in all likelihood making things tougher for ourselves in the future. Sometimes you have to stop fighting alligators and work on draining the swamp.

If you perceive some sort of immediate threat and have in your possession someone who might be knowledgeable about that, I think you are going to do whatever is necessary to alleviate that threat. On the other hand if you pick up some random guy who just happens to be on the other "team", you don't want to subject him to anything other than incarceration. I think we want to be known as a humane people but sometimes you have to do what is necessary to survive. And I think that it is important that your "enemy" not know what lengths to which you will or will not go. Why provide a comfort zone? When the conflict is over, and hopefully some day this conflict will end, when your captives are released with all of their limbs, eyes, ears, etc. intact and well fed, then I think it can be said that they were treated humanely.

[UNI88]

This "Conk" questions the effectiveness of torture and the accuracy of the information that those methods supply.

The use of torture or what could be perceived as torture needs to be considered not just from the perspective of the immediate value of the information collected but also from the long-term perspective of how it impacts the U.S. and its enemies or potential enemies. IMO, the use of what is perceived as torture damages our credibility in the world and helps our enemies, the terrorists and tin-pot dictators, by making it easier for them to blame the U.S. for their problems, recruit more terrorists, etc. You might think, "who gives a sh!t" and in the short-term you would be right but we are in all likelihood making things tougher for ourselves in the future. Sometimes you have to stop fighting alligators and work on draining the swamp.

If you perceive some sort of immediate threat and have in your possession someone who might be knowledgeable about that, I think you are going to do whatever is necessary to alleviate that threat. On the other hand if you pick up some random guy who just happens to be on the other "team", you don't want to subject him to anything other than incarceration. I think we want to be known as a humane people but sometimes you have to do what is necessary to survive. And I think that it is important that your "enemy" not know what lengths to which you will or will not go. Why provide a comfort zone? When the conflict is over, and hopefully some day this conflict will end, when your captives are released with all of their limbs, eyes, ears, etc. intact and well fed, then I think it can be said that they were treated humanely.

But in responding to the immediate threat are you creating the potential for even greater threats in the future? IMO, it's not just about the immediate threat. The use of torture or what could be perceived as torture has long-term implications to the security of the U.S. and those implications and the potential ramifications of our actions should be considered.

A non-torture example that hopefully help explains the point I'm trying to make. From the 50's on, the U.S. routinely propped up tin-pan dictactors around the world if they were essentially right-wing authoritarians (our PR term, we called left-wing dictators totalitarians) regardless of how they treated their own people or interacted with their neighbors. The Shah of Iran was a good example of this. Now what if instead of focusing on the short-term goal of propping up the Shah in order to maintain stability in the Mideast we had had the foresight to look ahead and realize that his government was not sustainable and that we needed to develop an alternative? How many of the problems that the U.S. has faced over the last 30 years could we have avoided?

And to be clear, I'm not saying that we should have tried to replace the Shah or that torture isn't in any way acceptable (although I'm an idealist and tend to agree with houndawg). I'm saying that policies that provide benefit in the short-term might have a much different impact in the long-term and those potential ramifications need to be considered. I see too many people (in government, business, etc.) making knee-jerk decisions without really thinking things through. We're in a 3D chess match and we need to be thinking 3+ moves ahead.

[TheDancinMonarch]

But in responding to the immediate threat are you creating the potential for even greater threats in the future? IMO, it's not just about the immediate threat. The use of torture or what could be perceived as torture has long-term implications to the security of the U.S. and those implications and the potential ramifications of our actions should be considered.

A non-torture example that hopefully help explains the point I'm trying to make. From the 50's on, the U.S. routinely propped up tin-pan dictactors around the world if they were essentially right-wing authoritarians (our PR term, we called left-wing dictators totalitarians) regardless of how they treated their own people or interacted with their neighbors. The Shah of Iran was a good example of this. Now what if instead of focusing on the short-term goal of propping up the Shah in order to maintain stability in the Mideast we had had the foresight to look ahead and realize that his government was not sustainable and that we needed to develop an alternative? How many of the problems that the U.S. has faced over the last 30 years could we have avoided?

And to be clear, I'm not saying that we should have tried to replace the Shah or that torture isn't in any way acceptable (although I'm an idealist and tend to agree with houndawg). I'm saying that policies that provide benefit in the short-term might have a much different impact in the long-term and those potential ramifications need to be considered. I see too many people (in government, business, etc.) making knee-jerk decisions without really thinking things through. We're in a 3D chess match and we need to be thinking 3+ moves ahead.

Nice academic exercise.

But what I am speaking of is this. There is a nuclear device in downtown Norfolk set to go off within the next two days. In this admittedly most extreme possibility, I do not care about the long-term sensibilities of those who are prone to hating us anyway. I'm trying to save the 100,000 or so who will die if that device goes off. Am I to offer my captive milk and cookies, feel good about myself and let many die or do I try to save the intended victims through whatever means are necessary? Your call.

[UNI88]

But in responding to the immediate threat are you creating the potential for even greater threats in the future? IMO, it's not just about the immediate threat. The use of torture or what could be perceived as torture has long-term implications to the security of the U.S. and those implications and the potential ramifications of our actions should be considered.

A non-torture example that hopefully help explains the point I'm trying to make. From the 50's on, the U.S. routinely propped up tin-pan dictactors around the world if they were essentially right-wing authoritarians (our PR term, we called left-wing dictators totalitarians) regardless of how they treated their own people or interacted with their neighbors. The Shah of Iran was a good example of this. Now what if instead of focusing on the short-term goal of propping up the Shah in order to maintain stability in the Mideast we had had the foresight to look ahead and realize that his government was not sustainable and that we needed to develop an alternative? How many of the problems that the U.S. has faced over the last 30 years could we have avoided?

And to be clear, I'm not saying that we should have tried to replace the Shah or that torture isn't in any way acceptable (although I'm an idealist and tend to agree with houndawg). I'm saying that policies that provide benefit in the short-term might have a much different impact in the long-term and those potential ramifications need to be considered. I see too many people (in government, business, etc.) making knee-jerk decisions without really thinking things through. We're in a 3D chess match and we need to be thinking 3+ moves ahead.

Nice academic exercise.

But what I am speaking of is this. There is a nuclear device in downtown Norfolk set to go off within the next two days. In this admittedly most extreme possibility, I do not care about the long-term sensibilities of those who are prone to hating us anyway. I'm trying to save the 100,000 or so who will die if that device goes off. Am I to offer my captive milk and cookies, feel good about myself and let many die or do I try to save the intended victims through whatever means are necessary? Your call.

Fair question (although another academic exercise). My answer: the response depends on the situation and IMO this situation calls for the use of whatever means are necessary and effective. But one problem is that I don't know if torture is effective. I will leave that up to the experts and not attempt to crucify them after the fact for doing what they thought was right to protect this country. I will ask them and the policymakers they report to to consider the long-term ramifications of their decisions.

The other problem is that the world isn't black and white and the intelligence community will not always have that much information regarding the extent of the threat. Where do they draw the line when the situation is unclear? How much information do they need and what should the nature of that information be to justify torture?

[TheDancinMonarch]

Fair question (although another academic exercise). My answer: the response depends on the situation and IMO this situation calls for the use of whatever means are necessary and effective. But one problem is that I don't know if torture is effective. I will leave that up to the experts and not attempt to crucify them after the fact for doing what they thought was right to protect this country. I will ask them and the policymakers they report to to consider the long-term ramifications of their decisions.

The other problem is that the world isn't black and white and the intelligence community will not always have that much information regarding the extent of the threat. Where do they draw the line when the situation is unclear? How much information do they need and what should the nature of that information be to justify torture?

Fair enough. And our exercise is being conducted under no time constraints, with no known potential threats, and no mandate to preserve, protect and defend and no worry about be reelected. Any administration, faced with what happened on 9/11 might be guilty of doing too little or too much. All we can do is hope for the best.

[slycat]

Asking a conk to read a book...you've done lost you're mind, slycat!

That's akin to asking a donk to actually use LOGIC. And facts. And reason. Ain't gonna happen.

These guys used logic to catch major terror suspects. Torture is a lost cause. If its so great then the country should legalize it instead of hiding behind someone elses flag. Sounds real American.