Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[jamil]

The idea of "natural rights," is subjective... and a sham.

No. You're thinking as a collectivist. Natural rights are all the non-agressive actions a person may take when there's not someone more powerful to stop him.

But we are social creatures and we like to form societies, and there are different kinds of societies that limit natural rights. In a democratic society, we cede some of those natural rights to the collective in exchange for protection of the subset of natural rights that a majority agrees to. In a democratic republic, to avoid infringing rights with popular whim, we limit the state's authority to regulate rights except by rule of law. In a dictatorship, a central figure decides which natural rights a person may exercise or not. In an oligarchy, a few elites decide which natural rights we may retain and which we may not.

If you were the only person on earth, what don't you have the right to do? You may if you decide, limit your natural rights with a sense of morality.

 

[jamil]

Respond to your lack of authority to torture another for information, please.

If you don't possess such authority, how could you possibly vest it in another?

What is the essence and source of authority?

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. You're thinking as a collectivist. Natural rights are all the non-agressive actions a person may take when there's not someone more powerful to stop him.

But we are social creatures and we like to form societies, and there are different kinds of societies that limit natural rights. In a democratic society, we cede some of those natural rights to the collective in exchange for protection of the subset of natural rights that a majority agrees to. In a democratic republic, to avoid infringing rights with popular whim, we limit the state's authority to regulate rights except by rule of law. In a dictatorship, a central figure decides which natural rights a person may exercise or not. In an oligarchy, a few elites decide which natural rights we may retain and which we may not.

If you were the only person on earth, what don't you have the right to do? You may if you decide, limit your natural rights with a sense of morality.

"Might makes right"

 

[indygunguy]

Yet it happens with no consequence and you, yourself, may have benefited. It's great to spout theory from the cheap seats, but there are people with the actual responsibility to try to prevent attacks.

Enjoy your theory and have fun with it!

If standing against state-sponsored torture is spouting "theory from the cheap seats" --- well then I'm right next to ATM in the cheap seats.

ps - coffee and bacon are served in the cheap seats, right?

 

[HoughMade]

"Might makes right"

Um...when it comes down to it, that's what every government at every level is based upon.

Sometimes the governments are trying to do what's right for as many people as possible. Sometimes the government is formed to benefit very few. Sometimes despite intentions it ends up being a combination of both.

So what do we do in representative republics, constitutional monarcies or any other "free" government? We exercise whatever influence we have to try to move the government in a direction we see as positive.

...but in the end, every government is in place based upon the notion that "might makes right", and if not "right", at least authority.

How could it ever be otherwise?

 

[jamil]

"Might makes right"

I joke with the Libertarians about the non-aggressive principle. It's not so much the principle but their ideals of implementation I disagree with. As a basis for rule of law in a free Republic, the non-aggressive principle is as close to objectively ideal and fair as we could get. So, with the non-agrression principle, "might" objectively is not right. As it pertains to this discussion, we have no right to escalate force unless someone else initiated it.

So, black helicopters notwithstanding, assuming veracity of the claims made in the OP's posted conversation with an interrogator, Muslim extremists have initiated force against the non-muslim world, in an effort to make the world conform to Sharia. In my sense of morality, that gives us the moral authority to use what the interrogator describes as "enhanced interrogation" if and only if that background information is true.

 

[jamil]

If standing against state-sponsored torture is spouting "theory from the cheap seats" --- well then I'm right next to ATM in the cheap seats.

ps - coffee and bacon are served in the cheap seats, right?

There's the theoretical ideas of "state-sponsored torture", and it seems to me that that label constructs a mental image of more than is happening. You can say that torture is torture. But surely you agree that in a practical sense, there are degrees on a scale of techniques people use to extract information. So where do you draw your moral line? Is it out of bounds to interrogate at all? If not, what methods are in bounds, and what methods are out of bounds?

 

[jamil]

Um...when it comes down to it, that's what every government at every level is based upon.

Sometimes the governments are trying to do what's right for as many people as possible. Sometimes the government is formed to benefit very few. Sometimes despite intentions it ends up being a combination of both.

So what do we do in representative republics, constitutional monarcies or any other "free" government? We exercise whatever influence we have to try to move the government in a direction we see as positive.

...but in the end, every government is in place based upon the notion that "might makes right", and if not "right", at least authority.

How could it ever be otherwise?

In a practical sense that's how it ends up being. That doesn't make it "right" though. It just makes it practical.

 

[HoughMade]

In a practical sense that's how it ends up being. That doesn't make it "right" though. It just makes it practical.

As I said, it's not necessarily "right", but it is authority. What we can try to do is to influence governments to exercise that authority in what we, as the citizens believe to be the "right" way. We won't all agree on that. We'll have debates. People will be voted in and out of office in response to these debates. There is no better, viable way of having a society...until the day the clouds part.

 

[ATM]

...ps - coffee and bacon are served in the cheap seats, right?

Coffee, bacon, and often a better sense of perspective.

 

[jamil]

Coffee, bacon, and often a better sense of perspective.

That's subjective.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There's the theoretical ideas of "state-sponsored torture", and it seems to me that that label constructs a mental image of more than is happening. You can say that torture is torture. But surely you agree that in a practical sense, there are degrees on a scale of techniques people use to extract information. So where do you draw your moral line? Is it out of bounds to interrogate at all? If not, what methods are in bounds, and what methods are out of bounds?

I guess another way to ask the question: do you have a right to someone else's knowledge?

If somebody knows something...say who is sending the envelopes of anthrax to Congress, or maybe who's supplying the materials to build suicide vests, and that sort of stuff, do you have the right to hold a person you believe knows that information against their will, trying to "convince" them to divulge that information?

 

[Woobie]

For the record, I think you have the right of it. It is immoral to employ force on someone who has already been, obviously, subjugated because he is unwilling to give up information one deems as important. If anything bad comes from that person withholding information, and it can be proven, at that point the person ca be held liable, within the confines of law.

This is incredibly callous.

 

[jamil]

I guess another way to ask the question: do you have a right to someone else's knowledge?

If somebody knows something...say who is sending the envelopes of anthrax to Congress, or maybe who's supplying the materials to build suicide vests, and that sort of stuff, do you have the right to hold a person you believe knows that information against their will, trying to "convince" them to divulge that information?

Or, even asked another way, does a person have an exclusive right to knowledge when it is knowledge of harm done to to others, or eminent harm of others?

So if we applied the libertarian principle of non-agression, who aggressed whom in your scenario?

This is why they invented the term grey area. To people at the extremes in the spectrum, it's all black and white. I think for most people, they think in the linear region where the output is proportional to the input. It's reasonable to suspect there isn't really an objective answer for all. ATM might say there is. Someone like Trigger Time might say there is. But their application of principles which drive their beliefs is subjective.

 

[jamil]

This is incredibly callous.

Why callous? I don't fully agree with Kut on that, but I don't see anything callous about it. He just has a different moral sense of it.

 

[Woobie]

Why callous? I don't fully agree with Kut on that, but I don't see anything callous about it. He just has a different moral sense of it.

I'm not saying he is callous, but the argument is. The substance of the statement doesn't look as compassionate as it feels in the cold light. In essence, the statement is "I can not feel comfortable with any form of enhanced interrogation, therefore, I will forfeit the opportunity to prevent any crime the detainee may conspire to commit, and instead wait until there are dead bodies and charge them with those murders." Or to put it another way, "better 100 dead Americans than one wet face." And while when we say things like that we don't realize it, we are actually admitting our own feelings trump others' lives.

 

[jamil]

I'm not saying he is callous, but the argument is. The substance of the statement doesn't look as compassionate as it feels in the cold light. In essence, the statement is "I can not feel comfortable with any form of enhanced interrogation, therefore, I will forfeit the opportunity to prevent any crime the detainee may conspire to commit, and instead wait until there are dead bodies and charge them with those murders." Or to put it another way, "better 100 dead Americans than one wet face." And while when we say things like that we don't realize it, we are actually admitting our own feelings trump others' lives.

I was applying it to the argument, not to Kut. But I get the point, I just don't think that's the argument he's making.

Is there something you won't do to a possible informant to get the information to prevent a crime? I hope we'd all at least say it should depend on the severity of the crime prevented. So given that, it leaves us with the outcome that you'd place the line differently from where Kut places, it for a given crime. So if your assertion is true, then the closer to "no torture" the line is, the more callous that placement is. Which, ironically, means the placement of the line at "anything goes", is least callous.

Instead of wading through all of crap, It's more productive to call it a moral judgement and subjective. And if you think Kut's argument is callous, maybe that's your opinion. Holding him to that, you would need to convince him to agree with your moral standards.

 

[actaeon277]

I am against torture... for the most part.
I do not want to see it regularly used for just any infraction.

But, I would say, like any rule/law, there are exceptions.


My justification?
The right of self-defense.
It is a tool, the same as a rifle. An ugly tool, but a tool nonetheless.

I capture osama-been-goat-fer. He's the guy that plans attacks for CHAOS.
In his hideout, I find equipment for growing viruses.
But, all the "stuff" is gone, on its way somewhere.
Now, torture by amateurs can give erroneous results.
But you can bet, I'll call a professional and sit on the suspect till the pro arrives.

 

[Woobie]

I was applying it to the argument, not to Kut. But I get the point, I just don't think that's the argument he's making.

Is there something you won't do to a possible informant to get the information to prevent a crime? I hope we'd all at least say it should depend on the severity of the crime prevented. So given that, it leaves us with the outcome that you'd place the line differently from where Kut places, it for a given crime. So if your assertion is true, then the closer to "no torture" the line is, the more callous that placement is. Which, ironically, means the placement of the line at "anything goes", is least callous.

Instead of wading through all of crap, It's more productive to call it a moral judgement and subjective. And if you think Kut's argument is callous, maybe that's your opinion. Holding him to that, you would need to convince him to agree with your moral standards.

I've never seen anything from Kut that would make me suspect in the slightest that he is callous. I would also agree that at some point you arrive at subjectivity. My main purpose here is to figure out how people who truly care about other people would stop so far short of figuring out how to save their lives. Do they care for the one detainee more than the thousand lives at risk? I don't think so. I have some theories, but I don't want to taint the inquiry with them.

 

[Woobie]

I am against torture... for the most part.
I do not want to see it regularly used for just any infraction.

But, I would say, like any rule/law, there are exceptions.


My justification?
The right of self-defense.
It is a tool, the same as a rifle. An ugly tool, but a tool nonetheless.

I capture osama-been-goat-fer. He's the guy that plans attacks for CHAOS.
In his hideout, I find equipment for growing viruses.
But, all the "stuff" is gone, on its way somewhere.
Now, torture by amateurs can give erroneous results.
But you can bet, I'll call a professional and sit on the suspect till the pro arrives.

I'm 100% with you. There's no reason to torture someone who has done something. But there is a sense of urgency when figuring out what they and their buddies are doing. If they suspicion is that they are in a massive jay-walking conspiracy, well, we can wait. If they're hacking, we can wait. If they're plotting to kill a few hundred people, we need to figure that out yesterday. And putting his nuts in a vice probably won't work. The interview in the OP says as much. Playing into their psychology seems more effective, from the way he talks.