Scalia: 'Jack Bauer Saved LA! Would you convict him?!'

[Axis Kast]

Yes, yes, pick up your goalposts and move them along

Where did I say that the U.S. should use torture, and then change my tune? Isn't there a rule about backing what you claim?

'But torture works sometimes!'

Because it's fucking true and you shouldn't pretend that torture has not, on occassionl, yielded somebody something. It is intellectually dishonest to say, "Torture doesn't ever work," even if the answer is just the same when you take into account its sometime successes. And anyway, the litmus test isn't just that it works; it's how often, as you pointed out.

This is you jumping on me for the simply sake of self-promotion, it seems.

[SirNitram]

Sure, Kast. Whatever lets you cry yourself to sleep at night. If the statistical chances are this small, it's not worth acknowledging, and it's not worth listening to you prattle on about how it really does work, sometimes, the Israelis say so, why don't you beleive them, this one guy got results in Vietnam, LISTEN!

[Axis Kast]

Yes! Let us not debate torture like rational men, or seek out examples to (try and) build cases for both sides, honestly.

Let us instead accept the statement of one side, dismissing the other because we have some particular preference independent of the facts.

Do you listen to yourself? I point out just when I begin talking about torture that my jaunt is "academic," you complain that I'm trying to secretly foist torture on your better judgement.

Were you born stupid, or did your parents just get sick of your shit and beat your ass?

[SirNitram]

Yes! Let us not debate torture like rational men, or seek out examples to (try and) build cases for both sides, honestly.

You didn't build an argument, you threw out a claim you refused to substantiate, then you threw out a singular case. Don't fucking lie.

Let us instead accept the statement of one side, dismissing the other because we have some particular preference independent of the facts.

You mean like your mindless acceptance of 'The Israelis said it works, and that it stopped bombings. Therefore, it worked.'

Do you listen to yourself? I point out just when I begin talking about torture that my jaunt is "academic," you complain that I'm trying to secretly foist torture on your better judgement.

No, I'm not saying a damn thing like that. I'm saying you're being a dishonest twat and have been through the whole thread.

Were you born stupid, or did your parents just get sick of your shit and beat your ass?

Cute, kiddo. Did you learn that on the schoolyard? You're the one who was whining about wanting to end this, now you're going to pretend you were building a case? 'The Israelis say it worked!!!' is not a case.

[Darth Wong]

Nitram, I hate to say it but I do think you've misrepresented Kast's position here. He never actually advocated the use of torture, nor did he say it's a good idea. He said it could work in certain theoretical or unusual situations, and cited one Israeli example which may or may not be accurately represented. Even if it's not, it would still be true that torture would work when it comes to extracting information from a prisoner who actually has useful information to give. The question is one of side-effects and collateral damage. In medicine, a treatment which causes far more damage than it heals is a shitty treatment, and the same is true here, but that doesn't mean it is incapable of ever working as advertised.

Of course, one could also raise the idea of ethics, which seems to be virtually ignored in American public discourse about the torture issue, but Kast has long been of the opinion that ethics are totally irrelevant to the behaviour of nations so there's no point going over that again.

[SirNitram]

I haven't been intending to say he's advocating torture. I've been pointing out his argument which he claims to have built is on farcical roots: The Israelis said so(WIthout anything to substantiate that), and a lone incident in Vietnam. That's not a foundation of a 'It can be useful' argument, that's a statistical outlier and an unsourced claim.

Again, if I'm coming off as saying he's advocating torture, it's not the intent. The intent is that the argument that it can be useful hasn't been substantiated with anything more than fluff. The requirements for torture to even have a chance, followed by no evidence the chance is high, makes it even more absurd to claim it can be useful.

[Axis Kast]

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate that.

Nitram, the points I made are as valid as any I get from a source that deals with primary information.

Do you think the Bill Cowan is a liar? What does he gain by lying? IIRC, he does not think torture is an appropriate tool.

Why must Koubi be lying? I pointed out that while Bowden has to be taken on faith, so too much the sources used by all investigate journalists. And Koubi's story is, at least, very similar to interrogation methods for civil prisoners, sans the violence.

[SirNitram]

I will attempt to put clear the problems with the 'It can work' argument in the form of defining what the best case scenario is, and what must be already in place to acheive it.

Benefits:

1) Confirmation of something you already suspect/know of.

Why only something suspected or known? Because we don't have truth detectors, and if someone tries the truth and the pain still comes, they make things up. Ergo, the best case is that they can confirm what is suspected.

But this carries requirements: They must be involved somehow to know, their capture must not be known by those involved(Because they can always change their plans if they think you'll get it out of them), and then we have the annoying unknown factor of how well the shit actually works. Kast has advanced these Israeli practices and the Vietnam incident to support it, but we hardly have them compared against others to produce a reliable guess on what the chances are.

So. With a plot already known, with someone who has a high chance of being in on it, and a low chance of the capture being known, you can potentially get a result. This is such a small blip as to be unreasonable to discuss, especially with the flimsy evidence used so far.

The cost aspect of this is already covered and actually agreed on.

[SirNitram]

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate that.

Nitram, the points I made are as valid as any I get from a source that deals with primary information.

Do you think the Bill Cowan is a liar? What does he gain by lying? IIRC, he does not think torture is an appropriate tool.

Doesn't need to be a liar. Just needs to be a statistical outlier. That's why singular cases aren't discussed, why anecdotal evidence isn't actual evidence.

Why must Koubi be lying? I pointed out that while Bowden has to be taken on faith, so too much the sources used by all investigate journalists. And Koubi's story is, at least, very similar to interrogation methods for civil prisoners, sans the violence.

The violence is the sticking point. Once pain is in the equation, people will say anything. Once you start getting that factor in, you potentially harpoon your entire information gathering because now you have garbage leads.

[Axis Kast]

I will attempt to put clear the problems with the 'It can work' argument in the form of defining what the best case scenario is, and what must be already in place to acheive it.

I concur with your points.

Torture is only a (potentially) useful recourse in situations that are so contrived they will probably never occur. The barriers to torture drop under certain conditions (say, the size of the area that the security apparatus needs to cover in order to determined the truth of each of the victim's confessions), but at no time do they drop even remotely near to the point that we should be asking ourselves whether we should actually drop prohibitions on torture.

Doesn't need to be a liar. Just needs to be a statistical outlier. That's why singular cases aren't discussed, why anecdotal evidence isn't actual evidence.

It is a statistical outlier. I disagree that we shouldn't discuss them. If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness and you could try a treatment that had a 1.0% chance of success, but had exhausted all other options near to the end, what would you do? I agree that it's very hard to think of a situation where that might be the case. But is it impossible? How about the German child case?

Also, what would you do if you were Bill Cowan or a member of his unit? Would you let the North Vietnamese prisoner go? Knowing that your men know the location of similar traps? How about when somebody reminds you that the North Vietnamese torture Americans even when they know the Americans do not do the same (routinely)?

Personally, I have a hard time faulting Cowan.

[Elfdart]

Looking at all the evidence, and realizing that, statistically, the chances of useful data from torture is pathetic, so chiming in with 'AH, BUT HERE'S A GUY WHO MADE IT WORK!!!!!' is a fallacy.

There's no fallacious logic to it.

I am saying that, statistically, the chances of getting useful data from torture is pathetic. But why is it not zero? Because it's been done before. I did not say that that changed the calculus. In fact, it's a part of it.

Great. Wonderful. No torture. Now, why don't we all fucking move on?

People have also consulted astrologers and psychics for thousands of years (policemen do it today). Surely there's some chance that whatever Miss Cleo or Dione Warwick pull out of their asses on the psychic hotline will provide a useful tool in stopping that ticking time bomb.


We can examine sheep livers for extra lobes if that fails.