Torture does not work

[Evangeline]

I posted this thread on another board. In talking to Republican torture lovers here, I'm not really talking to anyone on this board. I haven't noticed any torture loving Republicans here. But I just wanted to make this thread here too, to discuss this idea that torture keeps us safe and gets us good intelligence. I don't think it does either.

Everyone who's paying attention knows by now that torture does not work. Abu Zubaydah was caught in 2002. He gave up Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in the first hour of legal, by the book interrogation. He was then waterboarded 83 times in to get him to say Iraq was connected to 9/11. Of course that's not true, but it's what the Bush/Cheney admin wanted him to say. Torture does not save American lives. It puts American troops in more danger. It helps recruit more terrorists.
If you want to save American lives you interrogate a captured terroirst with the tried and true legal methods that are proven to work. You don't torture him with right wing blood lust. That's revenge, not intelligence gathering.

From the May 13, 2009 Senate testimony by a covert FBI agent:

...testimony Wednesday from a former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, and a Bush State Department deputy, Philip Zelikow, revealed a sobering portrait of fear-struck officials resorting to simulated drowning - or waterboarding - extreme sleep deprivation, prolonged confinement in small spaces, humiliation and other interrogation methods without examining their history, their efficacy or their larger consequences in the battle against extremism.

Soufan, testifying behind a screen to shield his identity, painted a picture of incompetence by outside contractors hastily flown in from Washington using "amateurish, Hollywood-style interrogation methods." He also accused Bush administration officials of making false claims about their success.

Soufan said his own interrogations of captured al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, using proven methods of psychological manipulation, had within one hour yielded the identity of the Sept. 11 mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Until then, he said, "we had no idea of KSM's role in 9/11 or his importance in the al Qaeda leadership structure."

Within a few more hours of questioning, Soufan said, he and other interrogators elicited information about alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.

Inexperienced contractors
But Soufan said he was pulled off the interrogation within a few days, to be replaced by contractors with no expertise in al Qaeda. They soon introduced nudity and sleep deprivation, loud noise and temperature manipulation and confinement in a small box. Zubaydah stopped talking, Soufan said. As the methods progressed, Soufan testified, FBI Director Robert Mueller pulled his agents off the case, saying, "We don't do that (torture)."

Soufan said the harsh techniques ignore knowledge of the detainee, his mind-set, culture and vulnerabilities, trying to force submission rather than elicit cooperation.

Aside from legal and diplomatic complications, he said, torture poses practical problems. Terrorists are trained to resist it. That is why, he said, "the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods until they reached waterboarding and there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again." Abu Zubaydah was subject to waterboarding 83 times, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times.

Information gleaned from torture may be unreliable and lead agents on goose chases. Its use also resurrected the "Chinese Wall" between the FBI and the CIA, obstructing information sharing, one reason the Sept. 11 plot went unnoticed in the first place.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/14/MNU217JS8R.DTL

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html


It's time the right comes to terms with your mistaken ideas that torture is good for our country or does anything to keep us safe from another attack. The only thing your Republican politicians have done by torturing people is lost valuable intelligence and made us less safe.

[Lance]

Torture only doesn\'t work if your not doing it right.

[Americano]

Torture only doesn\'t work if your not doing it right.

Care to expand on that after most authorities (other than Dickless Cheney) have stated results obtained by all forms of torture are for the most part worthless as intelligence gains? In example, the four-point cell structure of Al Qaeda, no personal contact or knowledge of other members outside each cell, for all practical purposes make the overall organization impenetrable regardless of what any member of a particular cell might disclose.

[Evangeline]

I've found that the most common example of torture working is the right wing claim (it's on cns - conservative news service - they keep linking to) is that waterboarding KSM 183 times is how we stopped the terror attack on LA. But there's a big problem with this example. Unless the Bush/Cheney admin had a time machine, I don't see how it could have happened.

Defenders of the practice say the waterboarding of Al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced information that allowed the U.S government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles in 2002.

http://laist.com/2009/04/22/waterboarding_helped_stop_a_terrori.php

Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html

[Daktoria]

From a personal perspective, I approve of torture not because of its capacity to extract information, but because of how it intimidates your opponents AND relieves your own morale. Of course we can't empirically claim this because every argument that opposes this is going to ask for particular examples of marginal success, claim that morale boosting is being qualified incorrectly, or demand that enemies are treated more humanely (even though membership in mankind by itself is not universally respected by either domestic OR foreign elements [as if you could objectively define respect without making appeals to emotion, pity, popularity, authority, etc. anyway even if evidence was presented]).

Warfare is a result of superheated aggression between conflicting factions, and it doesn't make sense to exert restraint when you're at total war with your enemy (such as terrorist organizations). Yes, we want to minimize collateral damage against civilians, but we also have to realize that terrorist factions are tolerated in foreign territory because of unsatisfactory policing efforts abroad. Ergo, we have two choices: either intervene and preemptively eliminate that which threatens us, or sit back and roll with the punches just because some innocent civilian bystanders failed to police their own jurisdictions. If you can't suck it up in the first scenario, then just get out of the way, but don't blame the military and government in the second scenario (which the public supposedly approves of via democratic popular consent) when they turn blind eyes for the sake of not garnishing the wrath of the very immature publics who demanded political correctness in the first place.

I mean think about it. Why in the world would anyone join the military (and police) at all if they're damned if they do, damned if they don't? They'd be better off becoming criminals instead by just watching the world burn if not actually burning the world themselves. You can claim that this is uncivilized and outrageous all you want, but words and ideas don't change people's minds, actions and circumstances do. When a speech is given, it isn't the actual words which change people's minds, but that those words' ideas are processed by the audience at hand which becomes convinced out of reflection (reflection which either synthesizes said ideas with personal experience or anticipates popular dissent and confusion from exposure to ideas that the audience didn't previously consider). Such is the nature of politics, and if the humanitarianism you believe in is going to be based on pity, emotion, etc., then you have to acknowledge that all "civil" ideals are a result of the same principles being put into practice no matter how pacifist or militant they may be.

[Michael]

From a personal perspective, I approve of torture not because of its capacity to extract information, but because of how it intimidates your opponents AND relieves your own morale.
If it "relieves" morale, how come all evidence of US "morale" shows a major decline with the advent of information about US torture practices?

Warfare is a result of superheated aggression between conflicting factions, and it doesn't make sense to exert restraint when you're at total war with your enemy (such as terrorist organizations).

1. My study of history suggests that the "superheated" passion for war is fostered by a small group of elites who seek to benefit/profit from the war. It is always artifice.

2. One exercises restrain because winning a war and losing your soul just isn't a good bargain.

3. I thought you admired virtue?

...Yes, we want to minimize collateral damage against civilians, but we also have to realize that terrorist factions are tolerated in foreign territory because of unsatisfactory policing efforts abroad.

Lots of issues here...

1. You state that terrorism is best addressed with police tactics, yet you want to treat the problem like some special 'political' issue with existential significance? I don't think you can have it both ways here.

Either terrorism is an existential threat, or it is due to unsatisfactory policing efforts abroad - one doesn't logically follow from the other.

2. Do you honestly believe that terrorism originates due to sloppy or ineffective police efforts abroad and that US foreign policy has nothing to do with it?

[Daktoria]

If it "relieves" morale, how come all evidence of US "morale" shows a major decline with the advent of information about US torture practices?

When a nationality, society, institution, community, etc. is mentally unprepared for the implementation of a tactic which it believes to be inhumane, it will will feel sick to its stomach when such tactic is actually implemented. The soldiers in the field just weren't morally hardened before getting thrown into conflict. Consider the alternative side of the issue. When terrorists capture and torment western hostages, they most certainly revel in the victory of overcoming previously impenetrable security systems of their arrogant adversaries, do they not?

1. My study of history suggests that the "superheated" passion for war is fostered by a small group of elites who seek to benefit/profit from the war. It is always artifice.

2. One exercises restrain because winning a war and losing your soul just isn't a good bargain.

3. I thought you admired virtue? For the sake of argument, I'll concede your first point because I feel that control and motive bear ambiguous importance.

Your second point is suspect to the subjective appreciations of resolve at hand. For the most morally resolute, the soul is a very deep concept that involves preservation of morals, ethics, values, etc. For others, the soul is a moderate concept that only involves maximization of the harm principle such that they refuse to engage in activities which don't "feel good" and aggressively pursue activities which either do "feel good" or offer relief from contained frustration, irritation, anger, etc. For the least morally resolute, the soul is a purely hedonist concept where actions are pursued for either impulsive satisfaction or selfish political materialism.

Yes, we would rather hold onto our soul than win a war if we had to choose between the two, but we are not always forced to do so and some people are unable to separate between the two.

Lastly, yes, I believe in optimally resolute morality (call it Kant's Kingdom of Ends if you want) although I wouldn't call it "virtue" per se. However, I also believe that conflict resolution should take place as efficiently as possible no matter how much violence such efficiency demands. I believe in this particularly so when such conflict involves moderate and hedonist appreciations of the soul, especially when MODERATE (NOT hedonist) appreciations are at hand. Such is because one, there is no better way to test and filter moderates for moral appreciation than to throw them into the gauntlet where they are forced to perform in order to survive, and two, hedonists are only morally worthwhile when they are involved in the one thing they do best - engaging in conflict.

You're right, moral appreciation is not a static attribute and it is possible to appreciate morality at a deeper level as life goes on. However, "human nature" has an ingrained resistance to change, and I don't really care for the preservation of stubborn individuals who demand empirical proof for every belief they're expected to wield (especially since the lack of appreciation for intuition implies that they will be more willing to drain and consume conscious appreciations of morality rather than expand or produce upon them). Sacrifice is NOT necessary, but it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to sacrifice themselves since enlightenment or transcendence doesn't feel good. Many feel that this is an arrogant statement (if not the most arrogant statement possible), but I don't care to preserve a world where politics reign supreme out of appeals to pity and popularity. Likewise, I don't particularly care to preach or teach morality to individuals who demand proof in order to be willing to listen. Learning is not a hierarchical process at its higher levels, and if you're dependent upon a preacher or teacher to make sense of everything for you, then you're just not going to make it. Call it social Darwinism if you want, the world is a cruel place and preachers and teachers can't protect everyone from every cruelty out there, human or natural. They can introduce morality to the public and collaborate upon the construction of morality's appreciation, but they can't coerce the public to believe in morality or protect morality's appreciation from the public's destruction.

There are quite a few assumptions being made here regarding your opinions, but I'm trying to anticipate your feelings here based on past discussions about torture since I'd just rather cut to the chase about torture's morality rather than dawdle through these fundamentals (as crude or rude as that might sound).

Lots of issues here...

1. You state that terrorism is best addressed with police tactics, yet you want to treat the problem like some special 'political' issue with existential significance? I don't think you can have it both ways here.

Either terrorism is an existential threat, or it is due to unsatisfactory policing efforts abroad - one doesn't logically follow from the other.

2. Do you honestly believe that terrorism originates due to sloppy or ineffective police efforts abroad and that US foreign policy has nothing to do with it?I don't believe that the recognition of politics or civil codes or statehood exists as a set of separate boolean values (such that a state exists or doesn't exist, a code exists or doesn't exist, a government exists or doesn't exist or doesn't exist, etc.). The sheer existence of political, legal, and military conflicts which contest the existence of human institutions based on subjective perspectives and intentions proves that said institutions are not absolute establishments. What I do believe in is that such institutions exist fluidly and dynamically such that their power waxes and wanes depending upon the respect they receive (similarly to how religion and gods wax and wane based on the amount of faith they receive). Ergo, terrorists fall into the greater category of insurgents which is cohabited by guerrillas, rebels, outlaws, pirates, etc. which all aim to undermine the dominant political economic order for their own (somewhat distinguished) objectives in political economy. Are these different kinds of insurgents different? Yes, but they all oppose the dominant force (typically the State) which needs to police its jurisdiction effectively to remain in control. Likewise, that force needs to acknowledge the usefulness of domestic and foreign diplomacy in cases where hard power isn't the most effective method (diplomacy being police's counterpart which I should have mentioned earlier in addition to police work when considering effective statecraft strategies).

Transnational Islamic fundamentalism is a fascinating case since it isn't limited to engraved political boundaries similarly to other instances of terrorism such as southeast Asian Maoism, the Kurds, etc. Still, terrorism is not necessarily a transnational activity which is demonstrated by groups such as the Khmer Rouge, the LTTE, Chechen separatists, FARC, the IRA, etc. so it does make sense to claim that Islamic fundamentalism is distinct in its disapproval of western (specifically U.S. policies). However, FARC is also disapproving of U.S. policies and contests the Columbian government for its support of the U.S.' War on Drugs.

The point is that Islamic fundamentalism focuses on countries which it is not only angry with in their support of the West, but countries which it is also focused on for generating support. Groups like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban need personnel in order to keep on trucking, so while their attacks might seem to just be effective for the sake of demoralization, they're also demonstrations of force which serve as rally cries for new recruits who are looking for a purpose in their lives that they can sympathize with. Therefore, you could say that U.S. foreign policy instigates these groups and their new recruits, but the U.S. is secondary to their primary motive which is to forge a new Islamic order (such as resurrecting the Caliphate depending upon the group); even if the U.S. wasn't the hegemon of the times, Islamic fundamentalism would still fight on (such as Islamic independent contention during the Cold War which was only taken advantage of by globalists in the U.S. and Soviet Union, contention against Russia and Great Britain during the Great Game, Ottoman and Mameluke contention during British and French attempts of colonization, and Saracen and Turk contention against the Byzantines and western Crusaders). In order for vulnerable States to retain sovereignty over their jurisdictions, they must suppress such contention, and if they fail to do so while letting such contention boil over their own borders, then the U.S. should intervene when applicable until it is assured that it is no longer exposed to any sensible threats (with multilateral support if possible when other states are threatened as well).

[Michael]

When a nationality, society, institution, community, etc. is mentally unprepared for the implementation of a tactic which it believes to be inhumane, it will will feel sick to its stomach when such tactic is actually implemented. The soldiers in the field just weren't morally hardened before getting thrown into conflict. Consider the alternative side of the issue. When terrorists capture and torment western hostages, they most certainly revel in the victory of overcoming previously impenetrable security systems of their arrogant adversaries, do they not?
I don't think so. Whenever Islamic terrorists capture western hostages it is usually a Western journalist or aid-worker living in that country without any guards or defensive precautions at all.

The west has never claimed or acted as it it had impenetrable security. Its pretty obvious the west doesn't have this. It is indeed part of the virtue of the west that we westerners don't believe we need such security.

Bottom line here is that your argument about morale increasing when torture is used is nonsense. Reality in the USA is that morale has fallen as knowledge of torturing has leaked out.

And the morale of the troops is almost irrelevant to the point here. The troops must follow their orders whether they like them or not, low morale or high morale makes no substantial difference. Indeed, history is littered with examples of armies possessing 'high morale' suffering massive defeat.

Not so with the civilian-citizen-voter - their morale matters a great deal. And if the civilians turn against a war-project, all the morale of the troops won't make one whit of difference - the war is essentially over.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede your first point because I feel that control and motive bear ambiguous importance.
I only made an argument based on motive because you have previously expressed the opinion that morality can only be judged by 'moral intent'.

I of course reject that model, but I'm not above using it to leverage an argument when it is useful. ;)

Your second point is suspect to the subjective appreciations of resolve at hand. For the most morally resolute, the soul is a very deep concept that involves preservation of morals, ethics, values, etc. For others, the soul is a moderate concept that only involves maximization of the harm principle such that they refuse to engage in activities which don't "feel good" and aggressively pursue activities which either do "feel good" or offer relief from contained frustration, irritation, anger, etc. For the least morally resolute, the soul is a purely hedonist concept where actions are pursued for either impulsive satisfaction or selfish political materialism.
As soon as you mention the "soul" you are not talking about morality, but doctrinal religion.

For the non-theist, "souls" are just religious mumbo-jumbo. The term has no definition, no objective meaning, can't be observed, and is entirely hypothetical and rests entirely on pure subjectivity.

I used the term in a common expression only to make a general point.

Yes, we would rather hold onto our soul than win a war if we had to choose between the two, but we are not always forced to do so and some people are unable to separate between the two.
Please drop this term of "soul". I can't make any rational sense of any argument that uses such a bizarre concept.

I apologize for using the term in a common expression.

I'll rephrase the concept - winning a war by comprising one's moral principles is no victory at all.

This formulation has identical meaning to the 'common' expression I used previously but avoids the religious-theocratic notion of 'souls'.

Lastly, yes, I believe in optimally resolute morality (call it Kant's Kingdom of Ends if you want) although I wouldn't call it "virtue" per se. However, I also believe that conflict resolution should take place as efficiently as possible no matter how much violence such efficiency demands. I believe in this particularly so when such conflict involves moderate and hedonist appreciations of the soul, especially when MODERATE (NOT hedonist) appreciations are at hand. Such is because one, there is no better way to test and filter moderates for moral appreciation than to throw them into the gauntlet where they are forced to perform in order to survive, and two, hedonists are only morally worthwhile when they are involved in the one thing they do best - engaging in conflict.
Sorry, I don't believe that the purpose of a war is so that the moralists on one side can decide who's morality is 'acceptable' amongst their fellow citizens. War is not a game for measuring religious or moral zeal.

You're right, moral appreciation is not a static attribute and it is possible to appreciate morality at a deeper level as life goes on. However, "human nature" has an ingrained resistance to change, and I don't really care for the preservation of stubborn individuals who demand empirical proof for every belief they're expected to wield (especially since the lack of appreciation for intuition implies that they will be more willing to drain and consume conscious appreciations of morality rather than expand or produce upon them). Sacrifice is NOT necessary, but it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to sacrifice themselves since enlightenment or transcendence doesn't feel good. Many feel that this is an arrogant statement (if not the most arrogant statement possible), but I don't care to preserve a world where politics reign supreme out of appeals to pity and popularity. Likewise, I don't particularly care to preach or teach morality to individuals who demand proof in order to be willing to listen. Learning is not a hierarchical process at its higher levels, and if you're dependent upon a preacher or teacher to make sense of everything for you, then you're just not going to make it. Call it social Darwinism if you want, the world is a cruel place and preachers and teachers can't protect everyone from every cruelty out there, human or natural. They can introduce morality to the public and collaborate upon the construction of morality's appreciation, but they can't coerce the public to believe in morality or protect morality's appreciation from the public's destruction.

Well, that bolded part is a BIG PROBLEM given that the argument about the necessity of 'empirical proof' is precisely for the purpose of demonstrating that there is none and that the motivation here is one driven by faith and/or emotion, not reason.

And I don't see human weakness as a reason to dispair. Humans are indeed weak, often irrational, inclined to be lazy, stupid and immoral. That's part of human nature - something to be accepted not something that "needs to be fixed". Besides, aren't conservatives supposed to make the argument that human nature can't be engineered? Aren't you suggesting the opposite here?

And I don't see how torture can improve the morality of either the perpetrator or the victim. I'd say the most likely outcome would be to produce two inhuman or anti-human monsters.

There are quite a few assumptions being made here regarding your opinions, but I'm trying to anticipate your feelings here based on past discussions about torture since I'd just rather cut to the chase about torture's morality rather than dawdle through these fundamentals (as crude or rude as that might sound).
Quick hint - I rarely approach any topic with emotion.

I reject torture because it doesn't work, it causes irrepairable damage to the society doing the torture, damages the psychic of people who are ordered to engage in the action, and ultimately, just invites brutal retributions from one's opponents.

Those are a lot of negatives to balance up against the fact that there are no positives here at all.

I don't believe that the recognition of politics or civil codes or statehood exists as a set of separate boolean values (such that a state exists or doesn't exist, a code exists or doesn't exist, a government exists or doesn't exist or doesn't exist, etc.). The sheer existence of political, legal, and military conflicts which contest the existence of human institutions based on subjective perspectives and intentions proves that said institutions are not absolute establishments.
I'll agree with this.

What I do believe in is that such institutions exist fluidly and dynamically such that their power waxes and wanes depending upon the respect they receive (similarly to how religion and gods wax and wane based on the amount of faith they receive). Ergo, terrorists fall into the greater category of insurgents which is cohabited by guerrillas, rebels, outlaws, pirates, etc. which all aim to undermine the dominant political economic order for their own (somewhat distinguished) objectives in political economy. Are these different kinds of insurgents different? Yes, but they all oppose the dominant force (typically the State) which needs to police its jurisdiction effectively to remain in control. Likewise, that force needs to acknowledge the usefulness of domestic and foreign diplomacy in cases where hard power isn't the most effective method (diplomacy being police's counterpart which I should have mentioned earlier in addition to police work when considering effective statecraft strategies).
In the paragraph above, you outlined the fact that there is no black and white. In this paragraph, you are making an argument predicated upon using black and white definition of insurgents.

Btw, the US state apparatus doesn't NEED to extert a monopoly on the use of force IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES in order to justify its own existence. That the US government tends to do this is beside the point.

The US state apparatus only has an obligation of power supremacy in the USA. Inside the USA, this is called government. Outside the USA, this is called military aggression.

Transnational Islamic fundamentalism is a fascinating case since it isn't limited to engraved political boundaries similarly to other instances of terrorism such as southeast Asian Maoism, the Kurds, etc.
Actually contemporary Islamic terrorism is totally limited to engraved political boundries and is entirely defined and empowered by them.

The fact that the US government insists on pretending that the threat is some mystical 'transnational' force of Islamic unity is just not supported by the facts of the matter. This is just propaganda used to justify the political desire for an active war policy.

Still, terrorism is not necessarily a transnational activity which is demonstrated by groups such as the Khmer Rouge, the LTTE, Chechen separatists, FARC, the IRA, etc. so it does make sense to claim that Islamic fundamentalism is distinct in its disapproval of western (specifically U.S. policies). However, FARC is also disapproving of U.S. policies and contests the Columbian government for its support of the U.S.' War on Drugs.

The present Columbian government is a US-client state - entirely dependent upon Washington's patronage for its existence.

FARC is quite right to draw no distinction between the two. They are one and the same.

And that just illustrates my point. FARC is a Columbian group. They have no ties to Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They are not even Islamic.

Indeed, that just suggests that it is US government actions that are the key commonality in so many instances of terrorism and the rise of terrorist groups.

The point is that Islamic fundamentalism focuses on countries which it is not only angry with in their support of the West, but countries which it is also focused on for generating support. Groups like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban need personnel in order to keep on trucking, so while their attacks might seem to just be effective for the sake of demoralization, they're also demonstrations of force which serve as rally cries for new recruits who are looking for a purpose in their lives that they can sympathize with. Therefore, you could say that U.S. foreign policy instigates these groups and their new recruits, but the U.S. is secondary to their primary motive which is to forge a new Islamic order (such as resurrecting the Caliphate depending upon the group); even if the U.S. wasn't the hegemon of the times, Islamic fundamentalism would still fight on (such as Islamic independent contention during the Cold War which was only taken advantage of by globalists in the U.S. and Soviet Union, contention against Russia and Great Britain during the Great Game, Ottoman and Mameluke contention during British and French attempts of colonization, and Saracen and Turk contention against the Byzantines and western Crusaders). In order for vulnerable States to retain sovereignty over their jurisdictions, they must suppress such contention, and if they fail to do so while letting such contention boil over their own borders, then the U.S. should intervene when applicable until it is assured that it is no longer exposed to any sensible threats (with multilateral support if possible when other states are threatened as well).

Does your argument hold when it is the US Government is the one fostering, training, financing and equipping them? Such as the Taliban and OBL for example in the Majudeen?

Does the US morality change magically when OBL switches targets from Soviets to Americans?

And how does any of this justify the use of torture? :ummm:

I don't see any argument here that justifies or even defends the use of torture by the US Government as a matter of routine policy.

[Daktoria]

I don't think so. Whenever Islamic terrorists capture western hostages it is usually a Western journalist or aid-worker living in that country without any guards or defensive precautions at all.

The west has never claimed or acted as it it had impenetrable security. Its pretty obvious the west doesn't have this. It is indeed part of the virtue of the west that we westerners don't believe we need such security.

You would agree then that terrorists relish in how the west arrogantly lets down its guard and supports liberties which it perceives cannot be protected then, no?

Bottom line here is that your argument about morale increasing when torture is used is nonsense. Reality in the USA is that morale has fallen as knowledge of torturing has leaked out.

And the morale of the troops is almost irrelevant to the point here. The troops must follow their orders whether they like them or not, low morale or high morale makes no substantial difference. Indeed, history is littered with examples of armies possessing 'high morale' suffering massive defeat.

Not so with the civilian-citizen-voter - their morale matters a great deal. And if the civilians turn against a war-project, all the morale of the troops won't make one whit of difference - the war is essentially over.The U.S. is an exception to the rule due to the unprecedented survival and growth of geopolitical liberalism. For example, the Vietnamese Hanoi Hilton and Japanese Bataan Death Marches are prime examples of torture being used to demoralize the enemy and energize their own military forces in the modern age, forces which belonged to nations that no where closely subscribed to liberal doctrines at the time.

Regarding morale, morale has been the primary concern of military commanders since the dawn of civilization. There is no more important facet of combat preparedness than morale even if loyalty is guaranteed such that desertion and mutiny are impossible, and for as many examples as there are of high morale forces being surprisingly defeated, there are far more examples of low morale forces being utterly squashed.

Regarding citizen morale, you're absolutely right considering that citizens provide the logistical foundation for any war machine especially in liberal democracies engaging in offensive campaigns. However, this is a weakness of democracies which grant too many liberties to immature citizenry that demand explicit State provided proof for policy implementation. A responsible democracy would contain not only an abundance of independently provided information, but also high profile streamlined records of precedents which show how such information has been previously processed in order to minimize redundant moral experiences, profiles which do not get convoluted via information overload and political correctness. Unfortunately, liberal democracies cater to information overload when maximizing equal opportunities while simultaneously catering to political correctness when normalizing the citizenry under customs, virtues, values, memes, etc.

Basically, it's a trap that democracies can't escape since values need to be individually appreciated in order to be resolutely integrated throughout a culture. When normalization takes place via political means though, coercion is an intrinsic part of the process.

I only made an argument based on motive because you have previously expressed the opinion that morality can only be judged by 'moral intent'.

I of course reject that model, but I'm not above using it to leverage an argument when it is useful. ;)...

...As soon as you mention the "soul" you are not talking about morality, but doctrinal religion.

For the non-theist, "souls" are just religious mumbo-jumbo. The term has no definition, no objective meaning, can't be observed, and is entirely hypothetical and rests entirely on pure subjectivity.

I used the term in a common expression only to make a general point....

...Please drop this term of "soul". I can't make any rational sense of any argument that uses such a bizarre concept.

I apologize for using the term in a common expression.

I'll rephrase the concept - winning a war by comprising one's moral principles is no victory at all.

This formulation has identical meaning to the 'common' expression I used previously but avoids the religious-theocratic notion of 'souls'....

...Quick hint - I rarely approach any topic with emotion.

I reject torture because it doesn't work, it causes irrepairable damage to the society doing the torture, damages the psychic of people who are ordered to engage in the action, and ultimately, just invites brutal retributions from one's opponents.

Those are a lot of negatives to balance up against the fact that there are no positives here at all.OK, well I apologize as well for being presumptuous.

Traumatizing indoctrination though is a side effect of permanent institutions which refuse to evolve due to an addiction to traditions. People and cultures change over time, and if the institutions they coexist with refuse to do so, problems will arise. In line with this, I don't believe torture should ever actually take place despite how I feel it isn't intrinsically bad, evil, or wrong. What I do believe is that if states and cultures refuse to adjust, their perpetuation will be contingent upon the usage of torture due to adherence to information overload and political correctness. Recalling my original position:
...[W]e have two choices: either intervene and preemptively eliminate that which threatens us, or sit back and roll with the punches just because some innocent civilian bystanders failed to police their own jurisdictions. If you can't suck it up in the first scenario, then just get out of the way, but don't blame the military and government in the second scenario (which the public supposedly approves of via democratic popular consent) when they turn blind eyes for the sake of not garnishing the wrath of the very immature publics who demanded political correctness in the first place.

I mean think about it. Why in the world would anyone join the military (and police) at all if they're damned if they do, damned if they don't?...

The last part is vital here because it emphasizes how all human values are subjective and normative notions such that the direction of justice enforcement is a symptom of power distribution. Nonetheless, this doesn't "mean might makes right" due to how power distributions are resolved in multiple phases before the final result.

Sorry, I don't believe that the purpose of a war is so that the moralists on one side can decide who's morality is 'acceptable' amongst their fellow citizens. War is not a game for measuring religious or moral zeal.War is just an extreme example of conflict that conveniently applies to the issue at hand; last minute Christmas shoppers, children bickering about who's turn is it to use the swing set, sport teams competing for a championship, and any other situation where multiple factions are competing for limited opportunities and resources fall under this description as well. Avoiding conflict requires a morally resolute appreciation for cooperation instead. Nobody is perfectly morally resolute, and everyone needs to be tested from time to time, so conflict is not entirely unavoidable. Hedonists though are unable to appreciate cooperation beyond selfish desires, so they deserve to be thrown into conflict the most. Moderates, by definition, only have a moderate amount of appreciation, so they deserve to be thrown into a moderate amount of conflict.

I do strongly disagree with your second sentence here though because political institutions derive their senses of law from their senses of morality. If there is any climactic game to measure morality under, war is it. Consider for example Japanese Bushido which required Samurai to behave loyally and wisely for the people and principles they cared about yet honorably to those who they contested in victory and defeat. Was that not a virtuous code of conduct and is it not comparable to today's expectations of good manners and sportsmanship which defy narcissism?

Well, that bolded part is a BIG PROBLEM given that the argument about the necessity of 'empirical proof' is precisely for the purpose of demonstrating that there is none and that the motivation here is one driven by faith and/or emotion, not reason.That there is none... what? You're confusing me here regardless of how I prefer reliabilism over evidentialism.

As for the preference of reason over faith (but not emotion), consider the following:

1. Cogito.
2. The universe exists.2.1 The universe operates at less than perfect efficiency.
2.2 The universe has finite information processing capacity.
2.3 The universe has an infinite amount of subsets and potentials which characterize its nature.
2.4 Therefore, the universe cannot completely conceptualize, understand, or even identify itself.
3. The universe cannot prove its own entire existence to itself.
4. Therefore, the universe can only (albeit semantically) acknowledge its entire existence through faith (although it's not guaranteed that the universe's faithful self-image will be correct).

QED

And I don't see human weakness as a reason to dispair. Humans are indeed weak, often irrational, inclined to be lazy, stupid and immoral. That's part of human nature - something to be accepted not something that "needs to be fixed". Besides, aren't conservatives supposed to make the argument that human nature can't be engineered? Aren't you suggesting the opposite here?That's fine, but that doesn't mean human weakness is something to celebrate in either. Laziness and everything else are meant to be overcome through the pursuit of perfection, not something to be relished in like a hog squirming in mud.

As for suggesting social engineering, no:Likewise, I don't particularly care to preach or teach morality to individuals who demand proof in order to be willing to listen. Learning is not a hierarchical process at its higher levels, and if you're dependent upon a preacher or teacher to make sense of everything for you, then you're just not going to make it. Call it social Darwinism if you want, the world is a cruel place and preachers and teachers can't protect everyone from every cruelty out there, human or natural. They can introduce morality to the public and collaborate upon the construction of morality's appreciation, but they can't coerce the public to believe in morality or protect morality's appreciation from the public's destruction.

And I don't see how torture can improve the morality of either the perpetrator or the victim. I'd say the most likely outcome would be to produce two inhuman or anti-human monsters.You're right, it can't improve morality by itself. What it can do is improve morale such that its agents and subjects might open doors (if auspicious circumstances are in place) to morality's refinement if they're in need of additional utility. Nobody's perfect, so utility is something everyone's going to need at some point, and torture is an intrinsic part of the development of self-discipline which is required to develop moral resolve and potential. However, this should be kept at a minimum in order to minimize hypocrisy, inefficiency, waste, chaos, violations, etc.

In the paragraph above, you outlined the fact that there is no black and white. In this paragraph, you are making an argument predicated upon using black and white definition of insurgents.

Btw, the US state apparatus doesn't NEED to extert a monopoly on the use of force IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES in order to justify its own existence. That the US government tends to do this is beside the point.

The US state apparatus only has an obligation of power supremacy in the USA. Inside the USA, this is called government. Outside the USA, this is called military aggression.
Well again, all human values are normative notions, so my reference to insurgents is a matter of relative power distribution between the dominant political institution and those who aim to upheave and erode it. What I'm describing here is a humanly recognized relationship and the associated optimal strategies, not absolute existence (which is to be expected given the objectives of social sciences). Expanded to necessity, nobody and no institution needs to do anything at all. Human and civilized existence are, again, normative values, so the objective here is to determine the best strategy for optimizing national interests. Does preemption ever NEED to be taken? No, but states and peace don't need to exist either, and part of statecraft is identifying when threats need to be countered in advance. Justification of statehood is yet another normative value, so while its justification can take place along multiple methods, said justification only matters if it is appreciated in accordance with the power distribution at hand (even if such appreciation is dynamic rather than official such that popular approval ratings sink while popular action exerts more restraint).

As for supremacy, I would rather live in a free country and a predictable world than a police state among a free world. Forget patriotism, nationalism, and imperialism here. The focus is on how civil liberties require economic abundance to be maintained, and the best political order is the one which optimizes the standard of living for those I care about (including myself). Then and again, I'd rather also live in a world where states are temporary institutions and democracy doesn't result in information overload or political correctness, so torture is a necessity for what I don't want rather than what I do. However, those who do want democracy and everything else will have to deal with it.

Actually contemporary Islamic terrorism is totally limited to engraved political boundries and is entirely defined and empowered by them.

The fact that the US government insists on pretending that the threat is some mystical 'transnational' force of Islamic unity is just not supported by the facts of the matter. This is just propaganda used to justify the political desire for an active war policy.Considering that Islamism doesn't have any central political geography and that its terrorist organizations function from cells rather than hierarchy (not to mention that a significant proportion of its attacks take place in many countries that do not primarily associate with Islam or Islamism), I don't see how Islamic fundamentalism can be deemed as limited by political boundaries. Furthermore, the restoration of the Caliphate under Sharia law is a central pillar of Islamism, so I don't see how it can be claimed that Islamic unity is not an objective.

The present Columbian government is a US-client state - entirely dependent upon Washington's patronage for its existence.

FARC is quite right to draw no distinction between the two. They are one and the same.

And that just illustrates my point. FARC is a Columbian group. They have no ties to Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They are not even Islamic.

Indeed, that just suggests that it is US government actions that are the key commonality in so many instances of terrorism and the rise of terrorist groups.The objective here was to provide a neutral non-Islamist terrorist organization that operates on a national rather than transnational basis. FARC only attacks targets in Colombia and hates the Colombian government for its support of the U.S., so it certainly qualifies. If it controlled the government, FARC would still have gripes with the U.S., but FARC wouldn't engage in violent conflict with the U.S. (nevermind that if it did happen to after acquiring control, such attacks would not qualify as those of a terrorist organization any longer).

Does your argument hold when it is the US Government is the one fostering, training, financing and equipping them? Such as the Taliban and OBL for example in the Majudeen?Not particularly because the U.S. is not a primary recruitment target of Islamist organizations. If there was an abundance of people like John Walker, then yes, but there aren't. However, it is fair to say that the U.S. is a supporter of state-sponsored insurgencies (and we could refer to the Nicaraguan Contras for a national non-Islamist counterpart).

Does the US morality change magically when OBL switches targets from Soviets to Americans?

And how does any of this justify the use of torture? :ummm:

I don't see any argument here that justifies or even defends the use of torture by the US Government as a matter of routine policy.Well that's politics for you in liberal democracies. We didn't learn our lesson, so we decided to flip-flop instead and caved into political pressure by forgetting what torture is all about.

Just a note, torture is not limited to inflicting pain for the sake of extracting information. Torture bears a far more general definition of anguish, agony, torment, etc. (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) For example, if you're working in an office and a parade is taking place on the street below you which is distracting you from getting your work done due to the noise it's making, then you're being tortured. If you're bodybuilding in a weight room and "feeling the burn" while trying to build muscle mass and neural endurance, then you're being tortured.

The focus on inflicting pain for the sake of extracting information is grounded on the matter of distinguishing between permissive and offensive externalities. Such appreciation of externalities though overlaps into the general progressive versus libertarian, positive versus negative liberty allowance debate. The more we support positive liberty, the more we allow citizens to get involved in government and the more we expect government to reciprocate. The more we support negative liberty, the more we allow citizens to distinguish themselves from government and the more we expect government to leave alone.

If we push far enough for positive liberties where we expect the government to intervene in order to provide equal opportunity in the name of national interests, our justification for doing so then rests upon our government's ability to provide for our lifestyles, both in terms of security as well as stability. As such, it would be hypocritical to disapprove of torture while approving of progressive ideals when expecting the government to allow usage of public goods which result in agony for a minority while expecting the government to provide the best possible security in the name of national interests (especially when progressivism is honored in the name of supporting minorities as well).

Seems to me that democracy and torture go hand in hand. If you want to get rid of one, then you have to get rid of the other. :rules:

[Michael]

You would agree then that terrorists relish in how the west arrogantly lets down its guard and supports liberties which it perceives cannot be protected then, no?
Yes, certainly.

The U.S. is an exception to the rule due to the unprecedented survival and growth of geopolitical liberalism. For example, the Vietnamese Hanoi Hilton and Japanese Bataan Death Marches are prime examples of torture being used to demoralize the enemy and energize their own military forces in the modern age, forces which belonged to nations that no where closely subscribed to liberal doctrines at the time.
I'd say that US 'lost' in Vietnam because of the critical drop in US civilian morale forced the US military to pull out short of achieving its objectives.

Vietnamese torture of US military personel doesn't appear to have been a factor in the drop in US civilian morale. Also, I'm not aware of substantial evidence that the US military suffered any 'morale problem' in Vietnam.

On this basis, I conclude that the Vietnamese torture policy failed to achieve its direct objective - the Vietnamese won the war for entirely different reasons - most of which they had no control over.

Similar argument for Japan in WW2 - their torture policy failed to achieve its objective since US military and civilian morale were both very high throughout the war and the Japanese ultimately lost.

I just don't see how either example of Vietnam or Japan in WW2 supplies any support for the assertion that torture has utility. Indeed, your examples appear to support the opposite conclusion that torture doesn't work (on any level other than as barbarism or sadism).

Regarding morale, morale has been the primary concern of military commanders since the dawn of civilization. There is no more important facet of combat preparedness than morale even if loyalty is guaranteed such that desertion and mutiny are impossible, and for as many examples as there are of high morale forces being surprisingly defeated, there are far more examples of low morale forces being utterly squashed.

I certainly agree that morale has always been considered of critical importance to military commanders. Historically, they had good reason for this. For war that involves blades and bows only, morale and discipline are critical to success. However, I'd argue based on a review of the historical record of military history, that it was the morale and discipline of the commanding general that mattered most of all. This is all pre-modern of course.

For modern era, things get much more complicated. War requires more than just morale and discipline of the general (and the troops). That's not enough to win a war any more. I don't feel sufficiently competent to argue/support all of the necessary elements to fighting a successful war in the modern era - nor is this germane to our discussion so I'll leave off this point here. Suffice it to say that I believe morale 'of the troops' has become much less singularly important in the context of modern war in comparison with pre-modern war.

Regarding citizen morale, you're absolutely right considering that citizens provide the logistical foundation for any war machine especially in liberal democracies engaging in offensive campaigns. However, this is a weakness of democracies which grant too many liberties to immature citizenry that demand explicit State provided proof for policy implementation. A responsible democracy would contain not only an abundance of independently provided information, but also high profile streamlined records of precedents which show how such information has been previously processed in order to minimize redundant moral experiences, profiles which do not get convoluted via information overload and political correctness. Unfortunately, liberal democracies cater to information overload when maximizing equal opportunities while simultaneously catering to political correctness when normalizing the citizenry under customs, virtues, values, memes, etc.
Short answer: that's because our 'representative democracy' system isn't very democratic at all. It is a system of 'rule by elites' with the 'tacit permission' of the ruled. This 'tacit permission' is issued with each election.

As such, our system tends to be best characterized as one that is driven by the principles of 'rule by the elites'. Many institutional elements (and policies) of the state tend to reinforce this model of rule by an elite class.

From the perspective of a system of elite class rule, information overload and political correctness are a 'feature not a bug'. This reinforces the model of elite class rule.

This is why our "liberal democracies" don't actually act like democracies when one analyzes their behavior. This is not a failure or feature of democracies - it is a feature of societies ruled by an elite class.

Basically, it's a trap that democracies can't escape since values need to be individually appreciated in order to be resolutely integrated throughout a culture. When normalization takes place via political means though, coercion is an intrinsic part of the process.
I'll certainly agree with this.

Democracy requires liberty, but liberty doesn't always produce the mass morality needed to support democracy. This is a serious challenge for democracy.

Traumatizing indoctrination though is a side effect of permanent institutions which refuse to evolve due to an addiction to traditions. People and cultures change over time, and if the institutions they coexist with refuse to do so, problems will arise. In line with this, I don't believe torture should ever actually take place despite how I feel it isn't intrinsically bad, evil, or wrong. What I do believe is that if states and cultures refuse to adjust, their perpetuation will be contingent upon the usage of torture due to adherence to information overload and political correctness. Recalling my original position:
[CENTER]...[W]e have two choices: either intervene and preemptively eliminate that which threatens us, or sit back and roll with the punches just because some innocent civilian bystanders failed to police their own jurisdictions. If you can't suck it up in the first scenario, then just get out of the way, but don't blame the military and government in the second scenario (which the public supposedly approves of via democratic popular consent) when they turn blind eyes for the sake of not garnishing the wrath of the very immature publics who demanded political correctness in the first place.

I mean think about it. Why in the world would anyone join the military (and police) at all if they're damned if they do, damned if they don't?...

[LEFT]The last part is vital here because it emphasizes how all human values are subjective and normative notions such that the direction of justice enforcement is a symptom of power distribution. Nonetheless, this doesn't "mean might makes right" due to how power distributions are resolved in multiple phases before the final result.
Well, my inclination is to say in reply to the first part, this smells like 'might makes right' to me! :D

You're going to have to make a much better argument to deflect that criticism upon what you have stated here. I don't think the one you have given is sufficient to rationally support that conclusion. Your 'two choices' does resemble a false dichotomy - there are other paths available there, not just the two you've given.

In reply to your 'last vital part', I'd say that particular paradox is a very human one in many respects (sounds like marriage). That being said, the devil's choice you set up may be due entirely to the false dichotomy and thus the 'no-escape' conclusion is false.

I'd like to add that the general type of person who is naturally attracted to serving in the military or police force is not the type of person who is going to be slicing and dicing philosophy to come to such a conclusion*. ;)

*This is NOT a 'dig' against veterans or those in the services at all. I highly respect those who choose to serve and risk their lives to defend the status quo of society (to my personal benefit).

War is just an extreme example of conflict that conveniently applies to the issue at hand; last minute Christmas shoppers, children bickering about who's turn is it to use the swing set, sport teams competing for a championship, and any other situation where multiple factions are competing for limited opportunities and resources fall under this description as well. Avoiding conflict requires a morally resolute appreciation for cooperation instead. Nobody is perfectly morally resolute, and everyone needs to be tested from time to time, so conflict is not entirely unavoidable. Hedonists though are unable to appreciate cooperation beyond selfish desires, so they deserve to be thrown into conflict the most. Moderates, by definition, only have a moderate amount of appreciation, so they deserve to be thrown into a moderate amount of conflict.

So you are making the analogy that "torture" is just an arbitrarily drawn point on the continuum of violence? And since you accept that violence is sometimes necessary, therefore torture may also be sometimes acceptable?

I'm just looking for clarification of your position here, since you have suggested that you don't (personally) like or want torture to be used, but still want to defend the idea of not-abjuring it.

I do strongly disagree with your second sentence here though because political institutions derive their senses of law from their senses of morality. If there is any climactic game to measure morality under, war is it. Consider for example Japanese Bushido which required Samurai to behave loyally and wisely for the people and principles they cared about yet honorably to those who they contested in victory and defeat. Was that not a virtuous code of conduct and is it not comparable to today's expectations of good manners and sportsmanship which defy narcissism?
One certainly can use war to measure morality under. If one seeks to measure morality, war is indeed the best place to do it.

My point was that this is a very, very bad reason to justify a policy of war.

As for the Samurai, that's just another self-serving philosophy of a ruling class. If they weren't a parasitical ruling class, then I might admire their codes of honor, good manners and sportsmanship. Not much different than the western code of chivalry. ;)

And that's not really "good manners" or "sportsmanship" per se. Those things involve a lack of material necessity that the behavior of a ruling class cannot be seen without.

In other words, Samuri may have been virtuous, but they were required to be for their social status and material livelihood. There were very high stakes involve in falling short.

Good manners and sportsmanship are values that are not usually seen as 'life or death' or even dishonor these days.

That there is none... what? You're confusing me here regardless of how I prefer reliabilism over evidentialism.
Given your next statement, I'm inclined to say we just hit the wall of epistemology! :D

As for the preference of reason over faith (but not emotion), consider the following:

1. Cogito.
2. The universe exists.2.1 The universe operates at less than perfect efficiency.
2.2 The universe has finite information processing capacity.
2.3 The universe has an infinite amount of subsets and potentials which characterize its nature.
2.4 Therefore, the universe cannot completely conceptualize, understand, or even identify itself.
3. The universe cannot prove its own entire existence to itself.
4. Therefore, the universe can only (albeit semantically) acknowledge its entire existence through faith (although it's not guaranteed that the universe's faithful self-image will be correct).

QED

A reply to this requires a discussion of epistemology. Suffice it to say that I agree with the argument you have laid out here, nothwithstanding my objections to the anthropomorphology involved in attributing thoughts or feelings to the universe as an entity. ;)

I'm perfectly aware of the limitations of 'proof' and the necessity of 'faith' that lie at the heart of all claims of knowledge. Kant's First Principle of accepting the time-space continuum, as a matter of faith, may be rationally necessary, but no other act of faith is.

Further discussion of this will definitely require its own thread. :)

That's fine, but that doesn't mean human weakness is something to celebrate in either. Laziness and everything else are meant to be overcome through the pursuit of perfection, not something to be relished in like a hog squirming in mud.
That's a choice for each human to make. We can all do our best to encourage them one way or the other, but I abjure the whip as a waste of energy when the only 'purpose' of forcing the choice is someone else's moral satisfaction, not actual necessity or safety.

As for suggesting social engineering, no...

...

You're right, it can't improve morality by itself. What it can do is improve morale such that its agents and subjects might open doors (if auspicious circumstances are in place) to morality's refinement if they're in need of additional utility. Nobody's perfect, so utility is something everyone's going to need at some point, and torture is an intrinsic part of the development of self-discipline which is required to develop moral resolve and potential. However, this should be kept at a minimum in order to minimize hypocrisy, inefficiency, waste, chaos, violations, etc.

Again, this comes back to my question to you above about torture merely being an arbitrary point on a continuum of violence.

In your example, I'd say that torture is the line where the negative externalities of the action far outweigh whatever small utility you can claim is derived.

(I'm cutting off here - this post is getting way too long).

[Michael]

Continued from above...

As for suggesting social engineering, no:Likewise, I don't particularly care to preach or teach morality to individuals who demand proof in order to be willing to listen. Learning is not a hierarchical process at its higher levels, and if you're dependent upon a preacher or teacher to make sense of everything for you, then you're just not going to make it. Call it social Darwinism if you want, the world is a cruel place and preachers and teachers can't protect everyone from every cruelty out there, human or natural. They can introduce morality to the public and collaborate upon the construction of morality's appreciation, but they can't coerce the public to believe in morality or protect morality's appreciation from the public's destruction.
You're right, it can't improve morality by itself. What it can do is improve morale such that its agents and subjects might open doors (if auspicious circumstances are in place) to morality's refinement if they're in need of additional utility. Nobody's perfect, so utility is something everyone's going to need at some point, and torture is an intrinsic part of the development of self-discipline which is required to develop moral resolve and potential. However, this should be kept at a minimum in order to minimize hypocrisy, inefficiency, waste, chaos, violations, etc.
Sounds like you are justifying the use of torture for the benefit of the torturer (he who defines utility) not necessarily the victim/object.

And that boils down to "I need this, therefore I shall compell you!"

I don't accept that reasoning as moral. That's just brute force. Nothing noble, admirable or honorable about that. Indeed, it is barbaric. It has reality, but it is nothing to aspire to or celebrate.

Well again, all human values are normative notions, so my reference to insurgents is a matter of relative power distribution between the dominant political institution and those who aim to upheave and erode it. What I'm describing here is a humanly recognized relationship and the associated optimal strategies, not absolute existence (which is to be expected given the objectives of social sciences). Expanded to necessity, nobody and no institution needs to do anything at all. Human and civilized existence are, again, normative values, so the objective here is to determine the best strategy for optimizing national interests. Does preemption ever NEED to be taken? No, but states and peace don't need to exist either, and part of statecraft is identifying when threats need to be countered in advance. Justification of statehood is yet another normative value, so while its justification can take place along multiple methods, said justification only matters if it is appreciated in accordance with the power distribution at hand (even if such appreciation is dynamic rather than official such that popular approval ratings sink while popular action exerts more restraint).

I would argue that the Japanese at Pearl Harbor demonstrated the foolish arrogance and irrationality that the principle of aggressive 'pre-emption' leads to - in spades.

One can spin the theoreticals round and round, but reality supplies lots of nasty counter-theoretical examples of how 'pre-emption' tends to backfire.

As for supremacy, I would rather live in a free country and a predictable world than a police state among a free world. Forget patriotism, nationalism, and imperialism here. The focus is on how civil liberties require economic abundance to be maintained, and the best political order is the one which optimizes the standard of living for those I care about (including myself). Then and again, I'd rather also live in a world where states are temporary institutions and democracy doesn't result in information overload or political correctness, so torture is a necessity for what I don't want rather than what I do. However, those who do want democracy and everything else will have to deal with it.
Yes, the best political order is the one which optimizes the standard of living for the ones you care about (including yourself). I agree with that.

I would assert that any political order that engages in torture will inherently violate this attempt at optimization by introducing outside elements of irrational hatred and revenge into the equilibrium. These reactions (or 'blowback' in CIA's terms) that these irrational elements bring cannot be predicted by definition - and thus cannot be rationally discounted, mitigated or even addressed.

Considering that Islamism doesn't have any central political geography and that its terrorist organizations function from cells rather than hierarchy (not to mention that a significant proportion of its attacks take place in many countries that do not primarily associate with Islam or Islamism), I don't see how Islamic fundamentalism can be deemed as limited by political boundaries. Furthermore, the restoration of the Caliphate under Sharia law is a central pillar of Islamism, so I don't see how it can be claimed that Islamic unity is not an objective.
Establishment of the 'Kingdom of God on Earth' with the second coming of Christ is a central pillar of Christianity as well.

All religions claim to be universal to all and absolutely true. Obviously, some fall short of this claim in reality. On this basis, I don't see Islam's claim of restoring the Caliphate to be any more credible than claims that "Allah is God".

The objective here was to provide a neutral non-Islamist terrorist organization that operates on a national rather than transnational basis. FARC only attacks targets in Colombia and hates the Colombian government for its support of the U.S., so it certainly qualifies. If it controlled the government, FARC would still have gripes with the U.S., but FARC wouldn't engage in violent conflict with the U.S. (nevermind that if it did happen to after acquiring control, such attacks would not qualify as those of a terrorist organization any longer).
The Palestinians and the Israelis are both examples of terrorist organizations that operate on an entirely 'national' basis.

Baeder-Meinhof or the Italian Red Brigades, also nationalists. IRA were nationalists too.

And statistically speaking, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan collectively account for some three-quarters of all 'terrorist' acts committed in 2007 according to US government data collection on the topic. That's all nationalist driven terrorism. Islam may be an extraneous variable here - a commonality like the color of one's skin. The key commonality with terrorism is nationalism, not religion.

Indeed, your assertion that the idea of restoring the Caliphate is integral to Islam makes Islam a political movement by definition.

Not particularly because the U.S. is not a primary recruitment target of Islamist organizations. If there was an abundance of people like John Walker, then yes, but there aren't. However, it is fair to say that the U.S. is a supporter of state-sponsored insurgencies (and we could refer to the Nicaraguan Contras for a national non-Islamist counterpart).
I was refering to the fact that the US government was a support of a state-sponsored insurgency in Afghanistan during the 1980s - a situation that ultimately led to the creation of the Taliban (and the US Government having Osama Bin Laden on the US payroll).

Otherwise, USA foreign policy actions are the the primary recruitment tool of Islamist organizations. Without the aggressive and 'forward' US military policy in the Middle East, these Islamist organizations would have few recruits. US support for the corrupt anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East is at the heart of anti-US hatred in that region.

Islam does not pose an 'existential' threat to Christianity any more than Christianity poses an existential threat to Islam or Judaism.

But US foreign policy does pose enormous threats to all non-Christian nations on the planet. US foreign policy also poses considerable threats to American allied nations on the planet.

Fact is, it is US foreign policy that is the issue that is at the heart of all discussions of terrorism. US foreign policy is not a 'tool' to address problems with terrorism - it is the driving force behind it.

Well that's politics for you in liberal democracies. We didn't learn our lesson, so we decided to flip-flop instead and caved into political pressure by forgetting what torture is all about.
Not at all.

US collective and political amnesia is an active policy, not a function of reality. One has to actively foster this to achieve it. US media is very good at it.

Just a note, torture is not limited to inflicting pain for the sake of extracting information. Torture bears a far more general definition of anguish, agony, torment, etc. (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) For example, if you're working in an office and a parade is taking place on the street below you which is distracting you from getting your work done due to the noise it's making, then you're being tortured. If you're bodybuilding in a weight room and "feeling the burn" while trying to build muscle mass and neural endurance, then you're being tortured.
Right. And if you take three spoons of sugar in your coffee, that's liberalism.

If you are 'conservative' that means you NEVER put more than half a spoon of sugar in your coffee right? If you ever put more than that, you're not being conservative - and you might be breaking a tradition here.

And everyone who is not psychotically 'anti-social' is in fact, a socialist. Humans tend to like some social company. So if everyone is a socialist, why don't we have a socialist government?

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of how important political terms look when you apply them in common everyday popular usage - and then make inferences from that about the important political issue at hand. It just doesn't work.

The focus on inflicting pain for the sake of extracting information is grounded on the matter of distinguishing between permissive and offensive externalities. Such appreciation of externalities though overlaps into the general progressive versus libertarian, positive versus negative liberty allowance debate. The more we support positive liberty, the more we allow citizens to get involved in government and the more we expect government to reciprocate. The more we support negative liberty, the more we allow citizens to distinguish themselves from government and the more we expect government to leave alone.

If we push far enough for positive liberties where we expect the government to intervene in order to provide equal opportunity in the name of national interests, our justification for doing so then rests upon our government's ability to provide for our lifestyles, both in terms of security as well as stability. As such, it would be hypocritical to disapprove of torture while approving of progressive ideals when expecting the government to allow usage of public goods which result in agony for a minority while expecting the government to provide the best possible security in the name of national interests (especially when progressivism is honored in the name of supporting minorities as well).
Aggressively invading small countries that pose no direct threat to US citizens (but holds great promise for US geopolitical power projections and great possibilities for US corporate profits) is not the definition of supplying "security to the citizenry".

If your lifestyle requires your government to play torture games, there's something wrong with your lifestyle.

Seems to me that democracy and torture go hand in hand. If you want to get rid of one, then you have to get rid of the other. :rules:

Huh? Political torture has been used by virtually every known authoritarian and/or autocratic and/or theocratic regime for thousands of years. The ONLY exception to this rule are modern liberal democratic states abjuring the use of political torture.

And you are trying to tell me that torture is endemic or integral to democracy? That makes no sense at all.

I'd turn the question around and ask why the USA is so weak that it requires torture to support its interests when other liberal democracies abjure it?

As noted previously, liberty doesn't necessary provide the mass morality necessary to foster and maintain a democratic system. Concluding that "thus torture is necessary" is not a justified or even rational conclusion to this observation.

[Daktoria]

OK, this is becoming cumbersome as you well know (:lol:), so I'm going to dilute my defense down to a manageable size. At least then, I won't log off every time I take a glimpse at the mess going on here.

I'd say that US 'lost' in Vietnam because of the critical drop in US civilian morale forced the US military to pull out short of achieving its objectives.

Vietnamese torture of US military personel doesn't appear to have been a factor in the drop in US civilian morale. Also, I'm not aware of substantial evidence that the US military suffered any 'morale problem' in Vietnam.

On this basis, I conclude that the Vietnamese torture policy failed to achieve its direct objective - the Vietnamese won the war for entirely different reasons - most of which they had no control over.

Similar argument for Japan in WW2 - their torture policy failed to achieve its objective since US military and civilian morale were both very high throughout the war and the Japanese ultimately lost.

I just don't see how either example of Vietnam or Japan in WW2 supplies any support for the assertion that torture has utility. Indeed, your examples appear to support the opposite conclusion that torture doesn't work (on any level other than as barbarism or sadism).

Sadly, I'm going to drop this point. Every time I look at this, I go off and do a couple hours of research and can never isolate any specific examples of torture sinking widespread morale despite how it affected the reputation of prisoner treatment. What I do find are how the troops in general became depressed and disheartened, and that their comrades and loved ones back home held split emotions. In WW2, the war was far more appreciated on the home front, so the response was more retaliatory. In Vietnam, the war was depreciated, so the response was more appeasing. Like you're saying though, this is civilian morale, not military morale, and while Bataan demonstrated to Filipinos that the Japanese were savages (which crashed morale in the Philippines and made it even easier to be taken) while the Hanoi Hilton (and other Vietnam POW camps such as The Zoo, Plantation, and Briarpatch) spread propaganda and reputations that demoralized American troops.

I certainly agree that morale has always been considered of critical importance to military commanders. Historically, they had good reason for this. For war that involves blades and bows only, morale and discipline are critical to success. However, I'd argue based on a review of the historical record of military history, that it was the morale and discipline of the commanding general that mattered most of all. This is all pre-modern of course.

For modern era, things get much more complicated. War requires more than just morale and discipline of the general (and the troops). That's not enough to win a war any more. I don't feel sufficiently competent to argue/support all of the necessary elements to fighting a successful war in the modern era - nor is this germane to our discussion so I'll leave off this point here. Suffice it to say that I believe morale 'of the troops' has become much less singularly important in the context of modern war in comparison with pre-modern war.OK, sufficed.

Short answer: that's because our 'representative democracy' system isn't very democratic at all. It is a system of 'rule by elites' with the 'tacit permission' of the ruled. This 'tacit permission' is issued with each election.

As such, our system tends to be best characterized as one that is driven by the principles of 'rule by the elites'. Many institutional elements (and policies) of the state tend to reinforce this model of rule by an elite class.

From the perspective of a system of elite class rule, information overload and political correctness are a 'feature not a bug'. This reinforces the model of elite class rule.

This is why our "liberal democracies" don't actually act like democracies when one analyzes their behavior. This is not a failure or feature of democracies - it is a feature of societies ruled by an elite class....

...I'll certainly agree with this.

Democracy requires liberty, but liberty doesn't always produce the mass morality needed to support democracy. This is a serious challenge for democracy.Meh, this is resolved enough.

Well, my inclination is to say in reply to the first part, this smells like 'might makes right' to me! :D

You're going to have to make a much better argument to deflect that criticism upon what you have stated here. I don't think the one you have given is sufficient to rationally support that conclusion. Your 'two choices' does resemble a false dichotomy - there are other paths available there, not just the two you've given.What I'm saying is, "The mighty make reality," not, "Might makes right." As actors, we have to believe that our own beliefs are right else we forfeit our senses of justice and become hypocritical, so from a first person perspective, the two phrases are equivalent. However, when evaluating decision making and strategizing with the understanding that our own beliefs aren't at stake in external system, the two phrases mean completely different things.

I'm going to drop this and the associated train of thought though since it just isn't worthwhile to pursue until we get some other moral issues set out.

In reply to your 'last vital part', I'd say that particular paradox is a very human one in many respects (sounds like marriage). That being said, the devil's choice you set up may be due entirely to the false dichotomy and thus the 'no-escape' conclusion is false.

I'd like to add that the general type of person who is naturally attracted to serving in the military or police force is not the type of person who is going to be slicing and dicing philosophy to come to such a conclusion*. ;)

*This is NOT a 'dig' against veterans or those in the services at all. I highly respect those who choose to serve and risk their lives to defend the status quo of society (to my personal benefit).Heh, specialization of labor and all.

So you are making the analogy that "torture" is just an arbitrarily drawn point on the continuum of violence? And since you accept that violence is sometimes necessary, therefore torture may also be sometimes acceptable?

I'm just looking for clarification of your position here, since you have suggested that you don't (personally) like or want torture to be used, but still want to defend the idea of not-abjuring it....

...Again, this comes back to my question to you above about torture merely being an arbitrary point on a continuum of violence.

In your example, I'd say that torture is the line where the negative externalities of the action far outweigh whatever small utility you can claim is derived.

(I'm cutting off here - this post is getting way too long).Put it this way. Nobody likes discipline or feeling the burn, least of all myself, but if you don't develop endurance, you're gunna get beat by the next guy who's willing to put in at least that one little extra scrap of effort to beat you. In the perfect world, this wouldn't happen because people would naturally cooperate, but the imperfect nature of mankind prevents the perfect world from ever being completely realized.

I also don't believe any such line can ever be drawn given the second law of thermodynamics which claims that entropy (physical chaos) is ever increasing. If we illegitimatized torture and adhered to your definition of it, nobody would ever be allowed to do anything other than just stoicly stand around like a statue.

One certainly can use war to measure morality under. If one seeks to measure morality, war is indeed the best place to do it.

My point was that this is a very, very bad reason to justify a policy of war.

As for the Samurai, that's just another self-serving philosophy of a ruling class. If they weren't a parasitical ruling class, then I might admire their codes of honor, good manners and sportsmanship. Not much different than the western code of chivalry. ;)

And that's not really "good manners" or "sportsmanship" per se. Those things involve a lack of material necessity that the behavior of a ruling class cannot be seen without.

In other words, Samuri may have been virtuous, but they were required to be for their social status and material livelihood. There were very high stakes involve in falling short.

Good manners and sportsmanship are values that are not usually seen as 'life or death' or even dishonor these days.Bleh, I don't know enough to distinguish between western and eastern feudalism and chivalry, and to be honest, I don't view sportsmanship as anymore than a cultural more of a facade for civil contentment. My point here was that life is war no matter how you cut the pie of creative destruction, and even if we want to say war is a bad place for measuring morality, we can't escape such measurement because war is everywhere.

Given your next statement, I'm inclined to say we just hit the wall of epistemology! :D

A reply to this requires a discussion of epistemology. Suffice it to say that I agree with the argument you have laid out here, nothwithstanding my objections to the anthropomorphology involved in attributing thoughts or feelings to the universe as an entity. ;)

I'm perfectly aware of the limitations of 'proof' and the necessity of 'faith' that lie at the heart of all claims of knowledge. Kant's First Principle of accepting the time-space continuum, as a matter of faith, may be rationally necessary, but no other act of faith is.

Further discussion of this will definitely require its own thread. :)Ok.

That's a choice for each human to make. We can all do our best to encourage them one way or the other, but I abjure the whip as a waste of energy when the only 'purpose' of forcing the choice is someone else's moral satisfaction, not actual necessity or safety.The point here is about fulfilling potential and impacting the world. Relishing in weakness detracts from humanity, and such eliminates the respect individuals are owed from Kant's formula of humanity.

Sounds like you are justifying the use of torture for the benefit of the torturer (he who defines utility) not necessarily the victim/object.

And that boils down to "I need this, therefore I shall compell you!"

I don't accept that reasoning as moral. That's just brute force. Nothing noble, admirable or honorable about that. Indeed, it is barbaric. It has reality, but it is nothing to aspire to or celebrate.Self-preservation, the mighty make reality, and everything else, we do what we do because we want to, and theories of justice, nobility, admirability, honorability, etc. are only appealed to as much as they are convenient for civil stability. Elites encourage them to settle the masses, and the masses feed on them to feel secure. Even entrepreneurs only recognize them in order to secure their property interests and optimize economies of scale from coexistence.

I would argue that the Japanese at Pearl Harbor demonstrated the foolish arrogance and irrationality that the principle of aggressive 'pre-emption' leads to - in spades.

One can spin the theoreticals round and round, but reality supplies lots of nasty counter-theoretical examples of how 'pre-emption' tends to backfire.

Wait, I forgot we're talking about terrorism too.

Ah, just cut the fat here.

Yes, the best political order is the one which optimizes the standard of living for the ones you care about (including yourself). I agree with that.

I would assert that any political order that engages in torture will inherently violate this attempt at optimization by introducing outside elements of irrational hatred and revenge into the equilibrium. These reactions (or 'blowback' in CIA's terms) that these irrational elements bring cannot be predicted by definition - and thus cannot be rationally discounted, mitigated or even addressed.

OK, cool.

Establishment of the 'Kingdom of God on Earth' with the second coming of Christ is a central pillar of Christianity as well.

All religions claim to be universal to all and absolutely true. Obviously, some fall short of this claim in reality. On this basis, I don't see Islam's claim of restoring the Caliphate to be any more credible than claims that "Allah is God".

Eh, I'm considering Islamism here. The reference to Islam was to show how Islamists get involved where Islam isn't even important, not to contrast it against Christianity which bears ambiguous importance regarding pertinent American foreign policy (unless we want to consider the course of American conservatism which I guess could be done in a different thread).

Point being, Islamism is not geographically confined to political borders. It's fanatical religious dogma, not a contained political movement even though it does have political interests and agendas.

The Palestinians and the Israelis are both examples of terrorist organizations that operate on an entirely 'national' basis.

Baeder-Meinhof or the Italian Red Brigades, also nationalists. IRA were nationalists too.

And statistically speaking, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan collectively account for some three-quarters of all 'terrorist' acts committed in 2007 according to US government data collection on the topic. That's all nationalist driven terrorism. Islam may be an extraneous variable here - a commonality like the color of one's skin. The key commonality with terrorism is nationalism, not religion.

Indeed, your assertion that the idea of restoring the Caliphate is integral to Islam makes Islam a political movement by definition.

Bleh, I traced this tangent back, and I can't remember what I was trying to argue here. Just to clarify, Islam is a religion, Islamism is a fundamentalist movement. You could say that Islam has political intentions due to Shari'a law, but the nature of Islam is a different topic.

I was refering to the fact that the US government was a support of a state-sponsored insurgency in Afghanistan during the 1980s - a situation that ultimately led to the creation of the Taliban (and the US Government having Osama Bin Laden on the US payroll).

Otherwise, USA foreign policy actions are the the primary recruitment tool of Islamist organizations. Without the aggressive and 'forward' US military policy in the Middle East, these Islamist organizations would have few recruits. US support for the corrupt anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East is at the heart of anti-US hatred in that region.

Islam does not pose an 'existential' threat to Christianity any more than Christianity poses an existential threat to Islam or Judaism.

But US foreign policy does pose enormous threats to all non-Christian nations on the planet. US foreign policy also poses considerable threats to American allied nations on the planet.

Fact is, it is US foreign policy that is the issue that is at the heart of all discussions of terrorism. US foreign policy is not a 'tool' to address problems with terrorism - it is the driving force behind it.

Alright fine. I don't wanna talk about the utility of U.S. foreign policy provocation, and I don't see why comparative analysis of religions matters here since I'm only recognizing Islam as a source for Islamism, not an evil religion that conflicts with the goals of Christianity and Judaism. My original point here was that terrorist attacks take place where they can garnish attention for recruits, and it doesn't seem that you have a problem with that.

Not at all.

US collective and political amnesia is an active policy, not a function of reality. One has to actively foster this to achieve it. US media is very good at it.

This suggests a government-media syndicate conspiracy that has dumbed down the American people, stupification which isn't exactly a recent phenomena nor independent of civil apathy from the people ourselves.

Bleh, I don't wanna talk about how the tolerance of moral relativism domestically excuses the usage of torture for selfish agendas. Another thread.

Right. And if you take three spoons of sugar in your coffee, that's liberalism.

If you are 'conservative' that means you NEVER put more than half a spoon of sugar in your coffee right? If you ever put more than that, you're not being conservative - and you might be breaking a tradition here.

And everyone who is not psychotically 'anti-social' is in fact, a socialist. Humans tend to like some social company. So if everyone is a socialist, why don't we have a socialist government?

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of how important political terms look when you apply them in common everyday popular usage - and then make inferences from that about the important political issue at hand. It just doesn't work....

...Aggressively invading small countries that pose no direct threat to US citizens (but holds great promise for US geopolitical power projections and great possibilities for US corporate profits) is not the definition of supplying "security to the citizenry".

If your lifestyle requires your government to play torture games, there's something wrong with your lifestyle....

...Huh? Political torture has been used by virtually every known authoritarian and/or autocratic and/or theocratic regime for thousands of years. The ONLY exception to this rule are modern liberal democratic states abjuring the use of political torture.

And you are trying to tell me that torture is endemic or integral to democracy? That makes no sense at all.

I'd turn the question around and ask why the USA is so weak that it requires torture to support its interests when other liberal democracies abjure it?

As noted previously, liberty doesn't necessary provide the mass morality necessary to foster and maintain a democratic system. Concluding that "thus torture is necessary" is not a justified or even rational conclusion to this observation.

Yea, this was stupid. Call it a strawman if you will, I don't wanna hammer at it anymore.

I think the ultimate point I'm getting at in this thread is that justice doesn't really exist and war is everywhere, so it doesn't make sense to call out torture for being unjustified since one person's torture is... another person's treat (?).

My, it's been quite some time since such cynicism came out of my mouth. :rolleyes:

[Michael]

OK, this is becoming cumbersome as you well know (:lol:), so I'm going to dilute my defense down to a manageable size. At least then, I won't log off every time I take a glimpse at the mess going on here.
:lol:

No problem. I follow Sun Tzu. If you need to give ground, I understand. :D

What I'm saying is, "The mighty make reality," not, "Might makes right." As actors, we have to believe that our own beliefs are right else we forfeit our senses of justice and become hypocritical, so from a first person perspective, the two phrases are equivalent. However, when evaluating decision making and strategizing with the understanding that our own beliefs aren't at stake in external system, the two phrases mean completely different things.

I'm going to drop this and the associated train of thought though since it just isn't worthwhile to pursue until we get some other moral issues set out.

That clarifies the point I objected to, but doesn't justify it to my satisfaction.

As you say, this point can easily be deferred to another discussion on morality, not specifically this discussion about torture.

Put it this way. Nobody likes discipline or feeling the burn, least of all myself, but if you don't develop endurance, you're gunna get beat by the next guy who's willing to put in at least that one little extra scrap of effort to beat you. In the perfect world, this wouldn't happen because people would naturally cooperate, but the imperfect nature of mankind prevents the perfect world from ever being completely realized.

I also don't believe any such line can ever be drawn given the second law of thermodynamics which claims that entropy (physical chaos) is ever increasing. If we illegitimatized torture and adhered to your definition of it, nobody would ever be allowed to do anything other than just stoicly stand around like a statue.
So you appear to be acknowledging that torture is indeed just another point on a continuum of violence - merely an extreme form of violence. Though of course, you reject the idea that any 'line' identifying torture could or should be drawn. Is this correct?

As for your second paragraph, that's nonsense. You are claiming that a limitation upon state-sanction of extreme violence against human beings is necessary for the state to exist? And that the forces that make this so are only increasing over time?

I say 'hogwash' to that. Are you familiar with the sociological studies by Michel Foucault - particularly a study entitled "Discipline & Punishment"? I strongly recommend it - it is a very short little book too!

My reason for bring that up is that it would show how our feudal and/or pre-modern government predecessors routinely engaged in the most horrific and barbaric acts of gratuitious torture for public spectacle. It was not enough to condemn a traitor to death, he had to be whipped, hanged and then drawn & quartered (even though he was already dead).

Oddly enough, those old governments that did that kind of thing have almost all passed away into the history books - replaced by new forms of governments that theoretically can pride themselves on not needing to do that.

I just don't see any argument that increasing torture is necessary over time to deal with increasingly worse conditions. The last five centuries have shown precisely the reverse. Less government torture with increasingly better living conditions for the masses.

Why anyone would want or need to bring torture back from its medieval past defies modern sensibilities. It is quite simply, barbaric and useless.

Bleh, I don't know enough to distinguish between western and eastern feudalism and chivalry, and to be honest, I don't view sportsmanship as anymore than a cultural more of a facade for civil contentment. My point here was that life is war no matter how you cut the pie of creative destruction, and even if we want to say war is a bad place for measuring morality, we can't escape such measurement because war is everywhere.
If everything is war, then nothing isn't.

That's the problem with that kind of statement. As soon as you say it, it looses all context and meaning.

My point is that morality at the point of a gun is way too easy. Morality when no one is looking - that's the really tricky one that one needs to pay the most attention to.

The point here is about fulfilling potential and impacting the world. Relishing in weakness detracts from humanity, and such eliminates the respect individuals are owed from Kant's formula of humanity.
I still don't see how your need to fulfill your potential can be used to rationally justify torturing me? :shrug:

That just doesn't pass Kant's dictum against using other people as a means to your own end (to say the very least!). :D

Self-preservation, the mighty make reality, and everything else, we do what we do because we want to, and theories of justice, nobility, admirability, honorability, etc. are only appealed to as much as they are convenient for civil stability. Elites encourage them to settle the masses, and the masses feed on them to feel secure. Even entrepreneurs only recognize them in order to secure their property interests and optimize economies of scale from coexistence.
So now you say laws and morality are only tools used by elites to rule with and that as an entrepreneur these laws and moralities are only interesting in so far as they present opportunities/limits for the entrepreneur?

Is this correct?

If so, I'm only interested in discussing public policy here. Personal private interests are none of my business.

Eh, I'm considering Islamism here. The reference to Islam was to show how Islamists get involved where Islam isn't even important, not to contrast it against Christianity which bears ambiguous importance regarding pertinent American foreign policy (unless we want to consider the course of American conservatism which I guess could be done in a different thread).

Point being, Islamism is not geographically confined to political borders. It's fanatical religious dogma, not a contained political movement even though it does have political interests and agendas.
I don't see how you can say that any of this is 'different' than Christianity.

Religious groups tend to have political interests and agendas. That's pretty obvious if you study history. Islam is just a younger religion that hasn't yet faced a strong domestic civil culture in opposition to it. Islam has yet to deal with that particular challenge. Christianity has. That Christianity has already tried to claim rulership over the entire world at the point of the sword is a noted fact. That they failed to achieve this is not a 'virtue' of Christianity. Islam has the same religious delusions of grandeur. This is not unique to Islam at all.

Bleh, I traced this tangent back, and I can't remember what I was trying to argue here. Just to clarify, Islam is a religion, Islamism is a fundamentalist movement. You could say that Islam has political intentions due to Shari'a law, but the nature of Islam is a different topic.
And to every variation of this argument, I will reply that it is not unique to Islam. That Christianity in the past has displayed every characteristic you wish to describe as specific and particular to Islam at this time.

I will likewise counter every assertion that terrorism is particularly or uniquely an Islamic phenomena. The facts on the ground just don't support that interpretation. As I've noted previously, the first notable usage of terrorism as a chosen tactic in the 20th century was the Zionists fighting for land in Palestine. Nothing Islamic about that.

Alright fine. I don't wanna talk about the utility of U.S. foreign policy provocation, and I don't see why comparative analysis of religions matters here since I'm only recognizing Islam as a source for Islamism, not an evil religion that conflicts with the goals of Christianity and Judaism. My original point here was that terrorist attacks take place where they can garnish attention for recruits, and it doesn't seem that you have a problem with that.
Sure, terrorist attacks take place where they can garnish attention for recruits.

But this thread is about the US government sanctioning the use of torture, not terrorism. The mere existence of Islamic-inspired terrorists doesn't justify the usage of torture and more than the existence of non-Islamic inspired terrorism does.

I argue that no western nation can sanction the use of torture for any reason and still claim to be civilized. It is barbaric and has no utility to a liberal democratic society under the rule of law.

This suggests a government-media syndicate conspiracy that has dumbed down the American people, stupification which isn't exactly a recent phenomena nor independent of civil apathy from the people ourselves.
Not specifically. I abjure the principle of conspiracies. I look for systemic or institutional patterns that are more efficient and effective explainations for the phenomena in question.

I believe there are plenty of systemic and institutional patterns in US society that supply a multitude of private motives that combine to produce this result. No active conspiracy is necessary. Private profit tends to be influential by osmosis. ;)

Bleh, I don't wanna talk about how the tolerance of moral relativism domestically excuses the usage of torture for selfish agendas. Another thread.
Well, that makes two of us then! :D

I'm certainly NOT making that argument here.

Yea, this was stupid. Call it a strawman if you will, I don't wanna hammer at it anymore.

I think the ultimate point I'm getting at in this thread is that justice doesn't really exist and war is everywhere, so it doesn't make sense to call out torture for being unjustified since one person's torture is... another person's treat (?).

My, it's been quite some time since such cynicism came out of my mouth. :rolleyes:
Well then, let us hope that it will be a long time before such cynicism returns.

In the meantime, I respectfully submit that you have been reduced to absolutely the pure principle of relativism as your only practical defense of torture.

And if that's the case, I'm okay with that. I'll just take another notch in my keyboard for this one. :p

I'll also suggest we take this issue right to the root and continue it elsewhere. You are making the nihilism argument and that's another thread entirely. :)

[Daktoria]

There's just too many prerequisites that need to be resolved here before I can make a coherent argument, so yea, it seems that you won this round, heh.

I did write this up regarding Foucault though a couple of days ago when I first decided to respond, so rather than let it go to waste, here it is:

So you appear to be acknowledging that torture is indeed just another point on a continuum of violence - merely an extreme form of violence. Though of course, you reject the idea that any 'line' identifying torture could or should be drawn. Is this correct?

As for your second paragraph, that's nonsense. You are claiming that a limitation upon state-sanction of extreme violence against human beings is necessary for the state to exist? And that the forces that make this so are only increasing over time?

I say 'hogwash' to that. Are you familiar with the sociological studies by Michel Foucault - particularly a study entitled "Discipline & Punishment"? I strongly recommend it - it is a very short little book too!

My reason for bring that up is that it would show how our feudal and/or pre-modern government predecessors routinely engaged in the most horrific and barbaric acts of gratuitious torture for public spectacle. It was not enough to condemn a traitor to death, he had to be whipped, hanged and then drawn & quartered (even though he was already dead).

Oddly enough, those old governments that did that kind of thing have almost all passed away into the history books - replaced by new forms of governments that theoretically can pride themselves on not needing to do that.

I just don't see any argument that increasing torture is necessary over time to deal with increasingly worse conditions. The last five centuries have shown precisely the reverse. Less government torture with increasingly better living conditions for the masses.

Why anyone would want or need to bring torture back from its medieval past defies modern sensibilities. It is quite simply, barbaric and useless.

I haven't read D+P, but I glanced over the Sparknotes and it seems to me that he's agreeing in that disciplinary institutions (especially prisons) arise from equilibrium being reached between sovereigns and reformers, equilibrium which arose because autocratic sovereigns were replaced by plutocratic sovereigns out of political competition. Bureaucrats would promise relinquishment of more and more control and power to the people in exchange for receiving political positions, and betrayal of such promises would result in popular dissent and uprising, dissent and uprising which reformers (as social entrepreneurs) discovered the roots of and presented terms and insight to bureaucrats who wanted to avoid being undermined in the future. Modern liberalism therefore is a romantic dream of the heirs of this exchange who forgot the reasons why it originally took place and only relish in the benefits and the supposed "moral" narrative that goes along with it.

The guy's a socialist, but he does provide adequate material for criticism on the interests of justice's pursuit. Admittedly though, I should read his literature itself firsthand before going on and on about it.

As for torture being reduced over the ages, I'd say that technology in the information age has reduced it far more than the goodwill of mankind. Political correctness and social exclusion are ever increasing characteristics of any society since societies are only created from mutual self-interests agreeing to cooperate; in order for said cooperation to be maximized, appeasements and specializations have to be made which induce social hierarchies.

Technology though acts as a two-edged sword. As it accelerates, it flattens out such hierarchies through information dispersion and forces correctness and exclusiveness to weaken in order to maximize exposure to new opportunities. However, as it decelerates, information overload and restriction require dishonesty (disguised as etiquette and romance) in order to qualify for previous commonplace institutions now deemed exclusive.

Torture, in this sense, is not a point on violence's continuum. It IS violence's continuum since violence would never be needed at all if nobody was ever frustrated enough to endure the hardness of resistance, and it never leaves as a feudal and barbaric practice. Rather it comes and goes all the time, and it is only shunned in its most extreme forms when it conflicts with politically correct principles that wouldn't exist in the first place if such principles weren't used to defend and disguise hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy: A wants X. A recruits B to get X. C has X. B uses methods deemed inappropriate by A to get X from C. A chastises B.

Resolution 0: A sucks it up and accepts B's solution.

Resolution 1: A dismisses B and recruits D. D has special talents which circumvent obstacles and lures X away from C.

Res 2: A dismisses B and recruits D. D exploits B's embarrassment to convince C that it's OK to forfeit X, and D gets all the credit.

Res 3: B revolts against A and smashes A, C, X, and (maybe) D to pieces.

Res 4: B revolts against A and gets smashed by A, D, and (maybe) C while X is established as a trophy to remind them of victory derived from deceitful instigation.

Res 5: B revolts against A. B recruits C (maybe with X) and A recruits D. Conflict ensues.

There are a lot of other possible resolutions, but the point is that it's impossible to deter torture once hypocrisy is in place. The question of how is a matter of perspective.

Contemporary torture though is one form of violence, so yes, I'll agree that it is a particular form of violence (albeit more of a range than a point per se).

[Daktoria]

Read the rest of your post, and I felt that I should respond to a few other points just to offer a complete sense of closure.

I don't see how you can say that any of this is 'different' than Christianity.

Religious groups tend to have political interests and agendas. That's pretty obvious if you study history. Islam is just a younger religion that hasn't yet faced a strong domestic civil culture in opposition to it. Islam has yet to deal with that particular challenge. Christianity has. That Christianity has already tried to claim rulership over the entire world at the point of the sword is a noted fact. That they failed to achieve this is not a 'virtue' of Christianity. Islam has the same religious delusions of grandeur. This is not unique to Islam at all....

...And to every variation of this argument, I will reply that it is not unique to Islam. That Christianity in the past has displayed every characteristic you wish to describe as specific and particular to Islam at this time.

I will likewise counter every assertion that terrorism is particularly or uniquely an Islamic phenomena. The facts on the ground just don't support that interpretation. As I've noted previously, the first notable usage of terrorism as a chosen tactic in the 20th century was the Zionists fighting for land in Palestine. Nothing Islamic about that.Alright, fine. I'm not a religious expert, so I'm not going to claim that Islam is intrinsically more violent, destructive, inhumane, etc. than any other religion, and we only need to look at efforts such as the crusades and the White Man's Burden to see how Christianity has been used to catalyze dominance.

The matter of one religion being more aggressive than another is just besides the point regarding the contest against transnational terrorism, religious fanaticism being one sort of such, Islamism being one form of it.

Sure, terrorist attacks take place where they can garnish attention for recruits.

But this thread is about the US government sanctioning the use of torture, not terrorism. The mere existence of Islamic-inspired terrorists doesn't justify the usage of torture and more than the existence of non-Islamic inspired terrorism does.

I argue that no western nation can sanction the use of torture for any reason and still claim to be civilized. It is barbaric and has no utility to a liberal democratic society under the rule of law.Heh, I planned earlier on starting a new thread on the nature of hierarchy which challenges the definition, essence, construction, and maintenance of liberal democratic institutions as adherent to the rule of law.

If you want to say that the U.S. is being strategically hypocritical, then sure, that makes sense, but I don't see why that matters when we're engaging organizations which aren't official militaries and have goals such as completely annihilating the U.S., uprooting western civilization, and establishing a radical new world order.

I just don't buy into just war theory at all especially with regards to the matter of proportional usage of force against weaker organizations. Chivalry is meaningless except for those who want to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes through political manipulation in order to preserve romantic majesty while being entertained by third parties fighting on the frontlines.

Not specifically. I abjure the principle of conspiracies. I look for systemic or institutional patterns that are more efficient and effective explainations for the phenomena in question.

I believe there are plenty of systemic and institutional patterns in US society that supply a multitude of private motives that combine to produce this result. No active conspiracy is necessary. Private profit tends to be influential by osmosis. ;)You're excusing the stupefied too much here. Nobody forces anyone to become stupid, and if the masses don't bear the character and initiative to unify independently, then they deserve their just deserts for being complacent.

Besides, what do you expect wealth bearers and pursuers to do? Just give away everything they've acquired? Why should anyone bother bearing or pursuing wealth in the first place if that's the case? They'd be better off just being complacent themselves so other people would be obligated to provide for them while not having to work at all, and I don't see any evidence of there being an equilibrium that when surpassed leads to immoral gluttony.