I think their discussion of "learned helplessness" is interesting in this context. I think it also applies to most Americans in the feeling that this will occur in our name, without our consent or approval, regardless of what we do. I don't think this is truly the case but it is hard to shake the feeling that it is and be as outraged by this as we absolutely should be.
The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
101–110 of 179 posts
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#102Interesting implication from the title of the article: that it would be 'right' to waterboard some other men. Who are they, and what justifies their torture? And before someone says it, I don't think "gathering intelligence" is a sufficiently moral or practical justification. People being tortured don't tell you valuable information; they tell you whatever they think will make the torture stop. The CIA is a sickening…
I am against torture. However, it behooves us to be honest to avoid counter arguments. There is a time when torture clearly does work - when you have a way to quickly verify information. I.E. if there is a safe in the room, or a phone number you can call, or something like that. However, most of the time torture is not used for that purpose.
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah I see how this site works
It's something that also bother me about HN. People downvote when disagree. I think that downvoting should be used for uncivil comments, not related comments, spam.. Otherwise we will finish in an echo-chamber. When we disagree we should answer. This is what I'm going try to do. First, you say "If given the opportunity, they would kill every single one of us". That's not true. Those terrorist acts have politic goals.…
I don't entirely agree with either side, but I will say that:
> First, you say "If given the opportunity, they would kill every single one of us". That's not true. Those terrorist acts have politic goals.
Certain segments of the western Political scene very much want to believe this, but I'm skeptical. They said that Hitler wasn't serious about his rhetoric either, that it was all politics. In fact, he meant it all, and indeed went on to start the biggest war in history and slaughter millions.
They downplayed the extremism of the ISIS types, and look what we have there. Just what we've seen so far is quite bad enough, and we haven't even gotten a full look at the situation.
Do we not at least owe the enemy the respect of believing they really intend to do exactly what they say they want to do? And they most certainly are the enemy of everything that we in the West hold dear.
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Who are they, and what justifies their torture? >People being tortured don't tell you valuable information; they tell you whatever they think will make the torture stop. You're already asserting your position, and disguising it as a question. Virtually everyone seriously condoning torture believe it is effective. If they were to believe it wasn't effective, they wouldn't order it to be done. You may think it's not e…
Assuming the conclusion? That would only be true if I also stated that the only possible justification someone might give for torture is intelligence gathering. I was simply addressing what I thought would be the most likely counter-argument, not asserting it's the only possible counter-argument. By all means, feel free to argue the merits of my 'pre-emptive counter-counter argument' (boy this is getting confusing).…
[deleted]
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming the conclusion? That would only be true if I also stated that the only possible justification someone might give for torture is intelligence gathering. I was simply addressing what I thought would be the most likely counter-argument, not asserting it's the only possible counter-argument. By all means, feel free to argue the merits of my 'pre-emptive counter-counter argument' (boy this is getting confusing).…
I think you should have left out the question altogether, or phrased it as an assertion: "nothing justifies torture".
I probably muddled my own point by descending into a rant in the OP.
I just found the unsaid implication, that torture is fine if the person does possess information you want to know, worth examining. Perhaps consider it this way: imagine all of the assertions made by the Bush administration about the victim were correct; he really was the Al-Qaeda 2nd in command, he had smuggled high-ranked Al-Qaeda members out of Afghanistan etc.
Would there be a defensible justification to torture him, and what would that justification be?
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#106Interesting implication from the title of the article: that it would be 'right' to waterboard some other men. Who are they, and what justifies their torture? And before someone says it, I don't think "gathering intelligence" is a sufficiently moral or practical justification. People being tortured don't tell you valuable information; they tell you whatever they think will make the torture stop. The CIA is a sickening…
I am against torture. However, it behooves us to be honest to avoid counter arguments. There is a time when torture clearly does work - when you have a way to quickly verify information. I.E. if there is a safe in the room, or a phone number you can call, or something like that. However, most of the time torture is not used for that purpose.
What's the difference between a drone strike or a beheading of innocents? What's the difference between Assad torturing non-Syrians or Americans doing the same thing at black ops sites? Out of all the justifications for acting brutally or inhumanely according to the ethical standard American rhetoricians, most of the justifications that sort of give a passing nod to all the State sponsored brutality are rooted not in any real plots that have happened, but in fictional ones that could happen.
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right, but the point of the article is that they were doing it to the wrong person. That doesn't mean it does not work. Causation does not imply correlation. I think this case make it obvious that it's impossible to tell if the person you're torturing has the information you're looking for and is withholding it, or simply doesn't have the information. That's a textbook definition of "ineffective".
What's the alternative? I'm generally curious as to what would be considered more effective.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess [1].
Also: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation [2]
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10...
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Why-Torture-Doesnt-Work-Interrogation/...
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#108Interesting implication from the title of the article: that it would be 'right' to waterboard some other men. Who are they, and what justifies their torture? And before someone says it, I don't think "gathering intelligence" is a sufficiently moral or practical justification. People being tortured don't tell you valuable information; they tell you whatever they think will make the torture stop. The CIA is a sickening…
So you ask them 30 questions 10 of which you know the correct answers. Also if you have several prisoners you can compare answers. This should give you a good idea about the validity of the answers.
Just waterboarding till you get a story you like is obviously bullshit but this also does not tell you much about the potential efficacy of torture.
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#109The sad part is: despite reading this article and fully agreeing with it, conservatives in this country will just shrug and say: mistakes happen, let's not dwell on it. And they feel justified in taking this view because they know deep down that it would never happen to a white person in today's US. Case in point: John Walker Lindh -vs- Jose Padilla. JWL (a white guy) was actually fighting against the Americans; was…
conservatives in this country will just shrug and say: mistakes happen, let's not dwell on it.
Apparently so will our Liberal president:
I hope that today’s report can help us leave these [torture] techniques where they belong—in the past. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/09/state...
Re: The Al-Qaeda Leader Who Wasn’t: The Shameful Ordeal of Abu Zubaydah
#110Interesting implication from the title of the article: that it would be 'right' to waterboard some other men. Who are they, and what justifies their torture? And before someone says it, I don't think "gathering intelligence" is a sufficiently moral or practical justification. People being tortured don't tell you valuable information; they tell you whatever they think will make the torture stop. The CIA is a sickening…
I am against torture. However, it behooves us to be honest to avoid counter arguments. There is a time when torture clearly does work - when you have a way to quickly verify information. I.E. if there is a safe in the room, or a phone number you can call, or something like that. However, most of the time torture is not used for that purpose.
I agree. This is the one situation I can think of where torture would probably be an effective means of obtaining the information you want.
And I also agree it's important to make this distinction, and for people to define what they mean by 'verify'. In my mind, the information is verified if the safe unlocks, the bomb is defused etc. The danger, I think, is when people consider 'verified' to include 'corroborating information obtained through torture'. This tends to lead you to false conclusions (e.g. half the women in your village are witches, as they all implicated each other when they were tortured).