Americans voted for Change

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, and the empirical experience that we have does not lead us to that conclusion. It's why the police station down the street isn't water boarding suspects, throwing their heads into "flexible" walls, placing them in solitary for ridiculous amounts of time, etc. Unless you're in some ****hole like North Korea.

This isn't a fair comparison. Interrogation of criminals is usually intended to get them to admit their own past crimes, whereas military interrogation is to get information on future actions. The benefits are different.

[Drake Tungsten]

Seriously, Arrian, if torture has a moral cost and a practical benefit, why is ONLY the moral cost relevant? Why is it impermissible - monstrous, even - to even consider weighing the cost against the benefit?

Good question.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo, while I admire your (and others) attempts to change their minds, you must know that the righties on this site, like the righties elsewhere CANNOT admit they're wrong on this issue, because if they do, then it opens up all sorts of nasty doors to consequences they can't afford to face. It's a fight you're never gonna win, bro.

-=Vel=-

I haven't ever seen you even attempt to make an argument on the subject. Pot, kettle?

edit: oh, you're argument was "torture IS bad, and the ticking-bomb scenario never happens, therefore we should never torture". Try and think about how flawed that reasoning is. Forget the semantics for a second and LOOK AT THE GODDAMN SYLLOGISMS. THEY DON'T WORK.

[Ramo]

This isn't a fair comparison. Interrogation of criminals is usually intended to get them to admit their own past crimes,

Not always.

whereas military interrogation is to get information on future actions. The benefits are different.

Yes, and in other posts in this thread, that's why I mentioned the legalism of the military, which is also comparatively restrained in its use of force (including interrogation procedure).

[Kuciwalker]

Whatever euphemism you choose to attribute to it, it's a technique that was designed to produce false confessions. Cuddly wuddly question time is not consistent with limited government.

Does that mean that it can't be useful to get true information? (No.)

[Kuciwalker]

This isn't a fair comparison. Interrogation of criminals is usually intended to get them to admit their own past crimes,

Not always.

Thank you for explaining the meaning of the word "usually". I've been using it for so long but didn't actually understand what it meant until now.

whereas military interrogation is to get information on future actions. The benefits are different.

Yes, and in other posts in this thread, that's why I mentioned the legalism of the military, which is also comparatively restrained in its use of force (including interrogation procedure).

Yes, so? That doesn't mean it has to be as constrained as the police forces.

edit: **** the new ****ing interface, with its fancy quotes: they're impossible to edit cleanly

[Ramo]

Is that consistent with a bias against state power? (no)

[Ramo]

Yes, so? That doesn't mean it has to be as constrained as the police forces.

I didn't say it should be. In fact, current procedure (that the right is decrying) is that the interrogators abide by military rules.

[Kuciwalker]

Is that consistent with a bias against state power? (no)

Perfectly so. I'm more biased against state power directed internally than externally (which is totally legitimate, as the former is usually more dangerous) and the benefits to externally directed power are greater.

[Velociryx]

Kuci,

The only two questions that matter to me on the subject are these:

1 - Is torture a reliable means of gathering intel?

2 - Is it consistent with our (America's) values and Constitution?

I've read "expert opinions" on both sides of the argument (tho there seem to be a good many more against than for), and conclude that the answer to question 1 is no. If you're partial to the notion of using torture, I'd expect you'd find experts that agree with your position and conclude differently, and there's prolly little chance of either of us changing the other's mind.

I've never seen a good, or even coherent argument that postulates the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative.

In fighting the monsters, we should take care not to become monsters ourselves.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, so? That doesn't mean it has to be as constrained as the police forces.

I didn't say it should be. In fact, current procedure (that the right is decrying) is that the interrogators abide by military rules.

Military rules for the treatment of a specific class of person, when dealing with a different class of person.

The state power argument just doesn't make sense here.

[Ramo]

Perfectly so. I'm more biased against state power directed internally than externally (which is totally legitimate, as the former is usually more dangerous) and the benefits to externally directed power are greater.

The escalation in state power directed internally is not torture, but a 3% higher marginal tax rate for people making above $250k.

[Ramo]

Military rules for the treatment of a specific class of person, when dealing with a different class of person.

What? It is illegal for the military to engage in the practices we're discussing. And it was illegal 8 years ago. Regardless of the class of person.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci,

The only two questions that matter to me on the subject are these:

1 - Is torture a reliable means of gathering intel?

2 - Is it consistent with our (America's) values and Constitution?

I've read "expert opinions" on both sides of the argument (tho there seem to be a good many more against than for), and conclude that the answer to question 1 is no. If you're partial to the notion of using torture, I'd expect you'd find experts that agree with your position and conclude differently, and there's prolly little chance of either of us changing the other's mind.

There's obviously a confirmation bias in either direction. Given that even Ramo admits torture may produce useful info, though, I expect Drake/DanS's conclusion is reasonabe.

I've never seen a good, or even coherent argument that postulates the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative.

"Values" is just another way of mentioning the moral cost - which, we just established, must be weighed against the practical value. Re: the Constitution, good job convincing a court that nonnationals held off American soil are guaranteed its protections...

In fighting the monsters, we should take care not to become monsters ourselves.

Anyone can quote Nietzsche. Bring this quote up again when we're slaughtering civilians for our own propaganda.

[Kuciwalker]

Perfectly so. I'm more biased against state power directed internally than externally (which is totally legitimate, as the former is usually more dangerous) and the benefits to externally directed power are greater.

The escalation in state power directed internally is not torture, but a 3% higher marginal tax rate for people making above $250k.

(Preface: we're quickly descending into unrelated political topics I have no stake in and don't care about.)

So? It's just not reasonable to assume that I hold the state to anywhere near the same standard for external and internal use of force.