Morally Acceptable?

[fl0at]

Law enforcement officials solve heinous crimes everyday without the use of torture.

And military captures HVTs all day without the use of torture.

LEOs don't bring in the most sought after cocaine drug lord daily.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Law enforcement officials solve heinous crimes everyday without the use of torture.

Law enforcement officials usually aren't dealing with religious extremists who would rather die than give up any information.

 

[CSVol]

I'm simply trying to show there are other means to the end.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm simply trying to show there are other means to the end.

Who knew?

The cool part is that military operations grant enormous timelines for bureaucrats to do their thing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

And military captures HVTs all day without the use of torture.

LEOs don't bring in the most sought after cocaine drug lord daily.

The use of torture and I use that term lightly since waterboarding is minimally torture is rare as well.

I don't advocate it as SOP but I'd like to see it as an option in those rare cases where it might yield useful info - e.g. KSM.

 

[NewToVolCountry]

Our country may not torture anymore, but you can bet your ass we let other countries handle our prisoners for a period of time and we don't give a **** what they do to them. They are just happy with the information relayed back.

 

[volinbham]

I agree that the no torture (as was used by Bush and Co.) but use those bombs and drones stance seems hard to square.

 

[fl0at]

The use of torture and I use that term lightly since waterboarding is minimally torture is rare as well.

I don't advocate it as SOP but I'd like to see it as an option in those rare cases where it might yield useful info - e.g. KSM.

I'm not sure I buy that waterboarding is minimally torture.

And I'm also not sure how we determine who has valuable information and who doesn't.

We might have gotten valuable information, but it isn't like he said: "Dude is right here."

We had to find the courier by wiretap, and then trace him back, and... basically got lucky.

And, how do we distinguish witch hunt information from solid information? Just trace every person they name and see what happens?

Or, do we do like truT said and find someone else to collaborate? What if each cell or leader has a predetermined "collaboration" person in mind, and they spit it out after a few rounds of pseudo drowning.

It just isn't hard information gathering for me, because there are far too many variables.

 

[fl0at]

I agree that the no torture (as was used by Bush and Co.) but use those bombs and drones stance seems hard to square.

One has legal standing, one does not.

 

[volinbham]

One has legal standing, one does not.

the thread is about morals not legality. I understand the link between the two but honestly I have less problem with waterboarding KSM than I do collateral damage from a drone.

 

[volinbham]

I'm not sure I buy that waterboarding is minimally torture.

Relative to other forms (more traditional) torture

And I'm also not sure how we determine who has valuable information and who doesn't.

I think the use we are discussing was incredibly rare - it's not like random dudes of the street were subject to EITs

We might have gotten valuable information, but it isn't like he said: "Dude is right here."

We had to find the courier by wiretap, and then trace him back, and... basically got lucky.

I believe the WB is used to gain cooperation not to get answers. Basically it is to break the defenses not to generate specific answers at that specific time.

And, how do we distinguish witch hunt information from solid information? Just trace every person they name and see what happens?

See above

Or, do we do like truT said and find someone else to collaborate? What if each cell or leader has a predetermined "collaboration" person in mind, and they spit it out after a few rounds of pseudo drowning.

See above - it is not the information given to stop the immediate situation. It is the changing the mindset of the person to one where they will more freely disclose information over time. As RealUT suggested, for KSM it removed guilt for him cooperating.

It just isn't hard information gathering for me, because there are far too many variables.

It is one approach, rarely used and it is not just information gained at the point of use.

Maybe it has a role in some cases. I just think the argument used by some that it is not at all effective or that the same information could be gained other ways is simply not supported across the board.

I'd like the option to be there in rare cases. I realize that has problems but to outright ban it when we do have evidence it can be effective is short-sighted.

 

[fl0at]

the thread is about morals not legality. I understand the link between the two but honestly I have less problem with waterboarding KSM than I do collateral damage from a drone.

On the moral side, every effort is made to minimize and avoid collateral damage and innocent kills, if and when possible. Collateral damage, innocent deaths, associated deaths, misery, harm, etc, are all passive actions that act to swiftly end an individual or collective groups' lives.

In torture, or waterboarding, every effort is made to be actively detrimental, and prolong misery for as long as possible.

Which is more moral: euthanasia of your cat in your veterinarian's office... or tying her up in a bag and dropping her in the lake, retrieving her, doing it again, retrieving her, doing it again...

 

[fl0at]

It is one approach, rarely used and it is not just information gained at the point of use.

Maybe it has a role in some cases. I just think the argument used by some that it is not at all effective or that the same information could be gained other ways is simply not supported across the board.

I'd like the option to be there in rare cases. I realize that has problems but to outright ban it when we do have evidence it can be effective is short-sighted.

I think if WB were truly used to gain cooperation, we'd be doing it to the world so they'd think our way. The mindset change is interesting, because it implies the whole purpose is to just make them more useful. And the usefulness is not that they brush their teeth at 7 am, shower and shave by 7:10 and stop throwing feces at Gitmo guards.

It is to extract information. Anything else is rationalization, and not "morals."

Rare usage is still rationalization, and is not "morals."

Discipline: Doing the right thing even when nobody is looking. You don't have to rationalize discilpine, which means you're doing it right.

 

[volinbham]

On the moral side, every effort is made to minimize and avoid collateral damage and innocent kills, if and when possible. Collateral damage, innocent deaths, associated deaths, misery, harm, etc, are all passive actions that act to swiftly end an individual or collective groups' lives.

In torture, or waterboarding, every effort is made to be actively detrimental, and prolong misery for as long as possible.

Which is more moral: euthanasia of your cat in your veterinarian's office... or tying her up in a bag and dropping her in the lake, retrieving her, doing it again, retrieving her, doing it again...

I hardly see the cat analogy as applicable at all.

I understand the passive vs intent distinction but in all honestly not trying to kill civilians (or maim them) but knowing you will seems like stretching the passive/non-intent argument.

As a separate distinction we have innocent vs guilty. Even the most passive collateral damage is inflicting pain/death against wholly innocent. Water boarding a known terrorist does no permanent physical damage to a guilty person and can yield information to save innocent lives.

Neither is clear cut.

 

[volinbham]

I think if WB were truly used to gain cooperation, we'd be doing it to the world so they'd think our way.

I really don't know what you mean by this.

The mindset change is interesting, because it implies the whole purpose is to just make them more useful. And the usefulness is not that they brush their teeth at 7 am, shower and shave by 7:10 and stop throwing feces at Gitmo guards.

The whole goal of interrogation is to extract information. EITs are one approach to encourage the informant to supply information. That is the purpose; not getting them to behave properly. The effectiveness question is do these techniques yield a more cooperative (supplying useful information) informant.

It is to extract information. Anything else is rationalization, and not "morals."

I agree - extracting information is the goal. I didn't mean it was to make them a better person or behave in any particular way.

Rare usage is still rationalization, and is not "morals."

The moral question is whether or not it is okay in some instances - for me the answer is yes.

Discipline: Doing the right thing even when nobody is looking. You don't have to rationalize discilpine, which means you're doing it right.

You are starting from a point that any EIT is wrong and thus immoral. That is a personal view. For me it is not immoral. I'm no more rationalizing than you are by saying collateral damage is not a problem since it was passive.

 

[fl0at]

I hardly see the cat analogy as applicable at all.

Ok. Apply it to a whole collection of male cats, female cats, kittens and their home when they are stray and possess a danger to society. Matter of fact, forget cats. Let's go rabid dogs.

I understand the passive vs intent distinction but in all honestly not trying to kill civilians (or maim them) but knowing you will seems like stretching the passive/non-intent argument.

Equate it to this, if you happen to be of the persuasion: You are a concealed carry permit holder, and you draw down to engage a man coming to do you or your family harm. Your round ricochet's off the ribcage and strikes an old lady down the street. Were your actions moral? You knew it could happen, but it was a risk you had to take.

Granted, you'd still be prosecuted in civilian life, or at least liable for civil suit. But you wouldn't be in the military, which is where we are basing our discussion.

As a separate distinction we have innocent vs guilty. Even the most passive collateral damage is inflicting pain/death against wholly innocent. Water boarding a known terrorist does not permanent physical damage to a guilty person and can yield information to save innocent lives.

Neither is clear cut.
Mind and body are tied together. Mental damage is as damaging as physical damage. The physiological repercussions long term are also real possibilities.

Innocent vs guilty is valid, but my opinion, based on the above, still has to do with whether the goal was to harm the innocent.

Bombs are in-discriminant, and torture is not. We have flip flopped views on which one is moral and which isn't.

And I have to enter a message? Hm.

 

[fl0at]

You are starting from a point that any EIT is wrong and thus immoral. That is a personal view. For me it is not immoral. I'm no more rationalizing than you are by saying collateral damage is not a problem since it was passive.

You said this: "I believe the WB is used to gain cooperation not to get answers. Basically it is to break the defenses not to generate specific answers at that specific time," so I replied that if that were true, we'd just water board the world.

Then you said change the mindset. Well, if you change the mindset, you can also get them to be more compliant, not in just answering questions, but in everything else. Ergo, we just do it to everyone so they change to our mindset, and be good little minions.

Basically, I was saying that the notion that WB or ETI is to change behavior (not answering questions to answering questions) is a load, at best, otherwise we would have no problem just doing it to everyone, all the time. Ya know, to change their mindset and make them more cooperative.

Collateral damage is a problem. Me saying it isn't would be rationalizing. It is a problem... it simply isn't the goal.

 

[chavisut]

Other than being groped at the airport?

Photography is a hobby of mine. I like to take photos of architecture. I've been stopped by cops three times in Chicago and St Louis for "suspicious actions" while taking photos. First two times they went through my camera and deleted photos, the third time I got smart and had a copy of the photographer's rights on me. All three claimed they were acting within the Patriot Act.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Cops hate hipsters.

 

[volinbham]

On the rapid dog analogy. Dunking the dog over and over does nothing to address the issue. One wouldn't do it. If somehow dunking the dog over and over would remove the rabies or prevent other problems that euthanizing did not for some particular dogs then it might be considered and an applicable analogy. As presented though it's simply dunking for no reason and not analogous.

On the collateral damage. Your ricochet is again off the mark (no pun intended). Clearly the military knows its actions will result in civilian deaths in many bombing cases - it is not a question of it might it is a question of how can we minimize what we know WILL happen. Hardly seems passive and the victims are innocent.

Mental damage MAY be as bad as physical for some people. It is not a universal equivalence. Being a prisoner can be mentally damaging for some people.

Back to the intent - I find it hard to really say that if you know bombs are going to kill (or have a high chance of killing) innocents then you don't have intent. More accurately you are making a calculation of the few innocents we will kill will be worth it for the number of bad guys we get and the future problems we prevent.

Bombs may be in-discriminant but someone has to order and deploy them and they know going in that innocents are likely to die or be injured. I wouldn't call that passive or free from intent.

 

[fl0at]

Good talking with you bham. I'll check back in tomorrow. Much 'ado about much, this evening.

 

[volinbham]

You said this: "I believe the WB is used to gain cooperation not to get answers. Basically it is to break the defenses not to generate specific answers at that specific time," so I replied that if that were true, we'd just water board the world.

Then you said change the mindset. Well, if you change the mindset, you can also get them to be more compliant, not in just answering questions, but in everything else. Ergo, we just do it to everyone so they change to our mindset, and be good little minions.

I think you are really reading stuff into what I said and creating a strawman here. I can play and say that why not bomb anywhere we think an enemy exists. Even if we kill countless civilians it's okay since we weren't intending to kill them.

Basically, I was saying that the notion that WB or ETI is to change behavior (not answering questions to answering questions) is a load, at best, otherwise we would have no problem just doing it to everyone, all the time. Ya know, to change their mindset and make them more cooperative.

I don't buy your argument here. If WB or ETI is not to get people to answer questions why on earth would we use it?

Collateral damage is a problem. Me saying it isn't would be rationalizing. It is a problem... it simply isn't the goal.

I think we are saying the same thing. When I said to gain cooperation I meant to get them to share information. The misconception is that information is gained at the moment of WB. It is not, it breaks the defenses just as being nice or buying cheeseburgers for the informant does. It is a method to get the informant to share information going into the future. All interrogation techniques do this.

On rationalization let me see if I get what you are saying. If I say WB is okay in some situations I'm not making a moral statement, I am rationalizing.

Why can I not have a moral position that says if I believe the information value outweighs the informant's right not to be WB then WB is morally okay?

In the same way you are saying if we kill innocents that is morally okay because we didn't mean to kill them.

 

[volinbham]

Good talking with you bham. I'll check back in tomorrow. Much 'ado about much, this evening.

:hi:

 

[fl0at]

On the rapid dog analogy. Dunking the dog over and over does nothing to address the issue. One wouldn't do it. If somehow dunking the dog over and over would remove the rabies or prevent other problems that euthanizing did not for some particular dogs then it might be considered and an applicable analogy. As presented though it's simply dunking for no reason and not analogous.

Very valid point. Dunking the dog does not address the rabies. But it might address the mindset, and thus make the dog less likely to bite. Thus, stopping the possible spread to humans. And the mindset is the goal, right?

Euthanizing addresses both.

On the collateral damage. Your ricochet is again off the mark (no pun intended). Clearly the military knows its actions will result in civilian deaths in many bombing cases - it is not a question of it might it is a question of how can we minimize what we know WILL happen. Hardly seems passive and the victims are innocent.

Again, valid point. However, it makes the assumption that it is always known that targets have innocents within. This is just not true. The minimizing is to what "might" occur. Not what will absolutely occur.

Mental damage MAY be as bad as physical for some people. It is not a universal equivalence. Being a prisoner can be mentally damaging for some people.

Absolutely it can be mentally damaging. But it isn't the active goal of prison. The same is not true of WB.

Back to the intent - I find it hard to really say that if you know bombs are going to kill (or have a high chance of killing) innocents then you don't have intent. More accurately you are making a calculation of the few innocents we will kill will be worth it for the number of bad guys we get and the future problems we prevent.

If you are not actively targeting the innocents, then what are you doing? Are you doing the opposite? It is a passive intent.

Bombs may be in-discriminant but someone has to order and deploy them and they know going in that innocents are likely to die or be injured. I wouldn't call that passive or free from intent.

Active knowledge does not equate to active intent.

Reply, I'll get back to you tomorrow. Hopefully, otherwise I'll get sucked in all night. Night bro.

 

[volinbham]

Very valid point. Dunking the dog does not address the rabies. But it might address the mindset, and thus make the dog less likely to bite. Thus, stopping the possible spread to humans. And the mindset is the goal, right?

No - not sure why you are hung on the mindset. I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say and are sticking to it eventhough I've explained several times what I meant.

Euthanizing addresses both.



Again, valid point. However, it makes the assumption that it is always known that targets have innocents within. This is just not true. The minimizing is to what "might" occur. Not what will absolutely occur.

But honestly it's much more likely than the ricochet example. Collateral damage is expected and thus the attempt to minimize. I don't buy the argument that it is fully intent-free if you know it's pretty likely you are going to kill some innocents.



Absolutely it can be mentally damaging. But it isn't the active goal of prison. The same is not true of WB.

Disagree - the active goal of WB is to get someone to share information they would not otherwise share. It has the same goal as other interrogation techniques.

Hell, lying to someone to get them to talk can be mentally damaging and clearly there is intent there to make them think things that aren't true as a pathway to getting them to talk. Many of the techniques are a continuum; not either or. Somethings are considered torture by some and not others. Making a potential informant believe that harm will come to their loved ones is a technique used. Is that torture? Isn't the goal to inflict mental anguish so they will talk?



If you are not actively targeting the innocents, then what are you doing? Are you doing the opposite? It is a passive intent.

I've explained why I don't see this black/white distinction. If I estimate that chances are high that my actions will kill innocents then it's hard to say that's completely passive. Are oopsies okay?

Let's switch it around. If I believe that WB won't cause mental damage but will get someone to talk is that not the same level of passivity? I don't intend to harm them. What about endless hours of loud music? Physically uncomfortable temperatures. Bright lights? If I don't think this will harm them am I in the clear?



Active knowledge does not equate to active intent.

Seems like a pretty fine line you are drawing there. Perhaps you think the same for me but if that's the case why would one be a moral decision (your view) and one be rationalization (my view)?

Reply, I'll get back to you tomorrow. Hopefully, otherwise I'll get sucked in all night. Night bro.

Night

I final point on active vs passive intent. If you drone bomb a house where you believe an enemy combatant is hiding that is clearly active intent to kill this person. Presumably that is morally okay because you believe he MAY cause harm to you or others. WB doesn't kill anyone and may or may not cause longterm damage to the person. Why is not okay to do this for the same reason - because you believe you may be able to prevent harm to yourself or others?

Both are preemptive moves. One results in death, one results in mental damage at worst. Both can yield positive results. WB KSM may have higher positives than killing some low-level dude in Afghanistan. In both cases we trust our govt to make decisions on the use of force; it is not a blank check to do either and the bombing and killing is 1000s of times more prevalent than the WB.

The WB will also not kill innocents but we know that odds are fair to good that bombing will kill innocents.

 

[fl0at]

Re: Bombing everywhere.
Not "okay."

Re: WB/ETI not to get information.
My point was that the entire purpose of WB/ETI is to obtain information. I latched on to the "mindset" statement, because you made it, at least to me, appear that you were saying the point of WB/ETI is not to illicit information, but to give them: 1) a way out of their internal dilemma, 2) alter their perception, 3) make them more compliant.

Which is all true. But the end goal is the information. Whether the question is asked immediately or three days later.

If you hadn't used "mindset," "cooperation" and the comment made by trUT, I wouldn't have latched on to those words.

Re: Same thing.

I don't think we are saying the same thing. One method inflicts harm, the other (cheeseburger) does not.

The end goal is the information; one forces the information out by the removal of harm, the other does not.

Re: Moral vs Rationalizing
Morality requires doing the "right" thing; rationalization explains the "wrong" thing in such a way as to appear to be the "right" thing.

Right: minimize the collateral. Wrong: nuke it.

Rationalize it: nuking it gave similar results, just more collateral damage

In torture, the goal is not to minimize anything. It is the opposite, if anything.

In my mind, torture is the nuke.

Re: hung on mindset
Possibly. But since you used variations of the theme (3) times in the same post, I kind of thought that was what you meant.

Re: ricochet
The only difference is the size of the bullet.

Re: sharing info
Same goal, different pathway. Lying, arguably amoral already. Telling them their loved one will be killed, coercion, arguably amoral.

Deception, manipulation... arguably amoral.

In some instances, a form of torture.

That is the black and white version, though.

Re: oopsies
"Okay," nope. A consequence of action, yup. A desire to do so? Shouldn't be.

Re: WB mental damage, passivity
If you believe it, no. If the world believes it, yes.

Would be the equivalent of having a completely amoral person do the work, simply because they don't feel it to be wrong.

If you can cite global opinion on the positive nature of WB, I'll back it. If you can cite majority condemnation on use of bombing, I'll concede its lack of morality.

Re: alternative techniques
Endless hours of loud music. Approved by the majority, I believe.

Physically uncomfortable temperatures. Approved by the majority, I believe.

Same with Bright lights. I could be wrong, though. Seems like these are standard, accepted practices for information withdrawal.

Well, so long as they don't go on forever. A single water-boarding... don't think the same can be said.

Re: Fine line
It is a very fine line; a boundary between black and white.

Re: Bombing vs WB
One is accepted, one is not.

Re: Death vs Mental Damage
One is accepted, one is not.