We should not debate whether torture is effective.

[geek tragedy]

If we debate whether torture is effective and treat that as the primary question, that implies that torture is an option where it is effective.

The efficacy of torture is/should be irrelevant.

Don't torture. Ever. End of discussion.

[Whiskeytide]

1. You're right. I'm always stunned...

... when people say "but.... it works". I say "so what?" That doesn't make it not torture.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[CJCRANE]

3. When you take away the utilitarian argument

it reveals torture's proponents as nothing more than dangerous and counterproductive sadists.

[unblock]

5. yeah, there's an appeal to the "bonus argument" concept, but it's a dangerous game.

as soon as they can produce even one concrete example where torture can be said to "work", they score major rhetorical points.
we should just say it's wrong. by adding "and oh by the way, it doesn't work", we give them a path to win the debate.

it's a dangerous game to shift focus away from the legal and moral demands not to torture.

[stevenleser]

6. That's the key. It's different truthful messages for different audiences.

Truth #1 - It's Wrong. This is aimed at those who accept there are moral issues with its use.

Truth #2 - It Doesn't work. This is aimed at those who have no moral issue with its use.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. +1 ...

Heaven is the eternal place, paved with gold and no more suffering - For those that need a "reward" for doing right.

Hell is the place of eternal place of suffering - For those that do right to avoid punishment

Both messages reach different audiences; but, result in people doing what is right.

[marions ghost]

11. Good point

I believe that torture as it has been clearly defined--is always morally wrong, but you can't convince the pragmatists among us with that argument. Does not mean that truth #2 cancels truth #1 in any way.

[Fred Sanders]

4. CNN and most of the media are on a marathon expedition to debate the effectiveness....the media

is as complicit as Bush and company, and now they are feverishly covering their tracks with deflection.

And so the media must not call it "torture", anything but, because just using the term defines the debate...the definition is is enshrined in international law, it says nothing of justification or effectiveness as a plausible defence.

Nothing.

[IDemo]

8. +1

[sumus]

7. Sign this Whitehouse.Gov Petition to call for the release of the Panetta Report, one small step.

http://wh.gov/i1ooD

This petition calls for transparency. The Senate Intelligence Committee report found that the CIA used harsh interrogation techniques that rarely resulted in valuable information. Senator Udall said an internal report, known as the Panetta Review, is a "smoking gun" that proves the agency continues to mislead the public. The White House can release this report and bring an end to the shameful chapter.

[90-percent]

9. signed

i'm #7 out of what i hope is over a hundred thousand to come.

-90% jimmy

[treestar]

12. It's medieval

And it's only to get the person to say what you want them to say, not the truth. A torturer has already decided what the truth is and wants a confession. They should not be wasting time, but trying to get the information another way.

[truebluegreen]

13. Unfortunately, with the conservatives the only moral consideration

is whether they themselves are "safe." Remember how--lacking empathy--they can never relate to how good or bad a policy is until it affects them, personally? They are ends-justify-the-means folks. If you listen, that's what they are saying all over the airwaves--these practices kept us safe and therefore they were the right thing to do and we'd do them again in a heartbeat! (and 'Murica is awesome and deserves to be preserved in its awesomeness by any means necessary!) etc etc etc.

So, as reprehensible as it seems to us, the only way to reach them is to show that torture does not work. Unfortunately, that means bucking decades of movies and teevee that "prove" it does work, but I think that is easier than instilling them with different moral values.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I disagree

I agree that we should never torture, but I don't know how to make an effective argument out of that that will persuade someone who believes that torture is something necessary to protect one's country, like the Big Dick says.

So how do you argue with someone like that? Well, one can't argue a moral case if the person one is trying to persuade does not share the same morality, therefore must choose another argument, one that is not based on morality but rather something one and his target agree upon. My choice is to attack the efficacy of torture.

Of course, one won't persuade the Big Dick. Maybe he's just has a skull that's too thick, but it's more likely that he has a vested interest in arguing that torture works: it's part of his legal defense, if he ever needs one. However, a rank-and-file Republican doesn't have the same dog in the fight that the Big Dick has. One has a better chance persuading that person with the pragmatic argument.

[Johonny]

16. I agree -It did not make us safer, it had no means to make us safer (the second point is important)

The fact that torture is one of the least effective ways to obtain accurate information and often massively interferes with obtaining such information is critical to the discussion. Of all the post 9-11 tools we had as a nation creating a torturer program was one of the most pointless tasks we could do. We already knew it would not do anything positive. None of the post torturer reports have shown it to magically become effective. Not only is torture immoral, it is also does not work. I think it is important to remind them of this every chance we have. Dick Cheney Tortured people not because it was effective, not because we had to, but because he wanted to. Republicans continuously insist on programs such as tickle down economics, right to work, and torture that are likely morally reprehensible. They also are massively counter productive and they have no means to achieve the state goal for installing them. They are the tools used by ignorant mean Thugs that use them because they want to not because they work. That last point is important. They want low wages, they want people without healthcare, they want a uber elite economic class, they want to torture innocent people. That's the world they want, not because their policies work, but because they want it even if they don't work.

[geek tragedy]

17. People support torture because they want to inflict suffering

on people they hate and "deserve" it. Efficacy is a fig leaf.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I would still suggest using that argument rather than the moral

First of all, I do not believe that those who support the torture program are that monolithic.

I don't know about you, but I'm too old to spend the time I have left trying to convert a Catholic Bishop to Zen Buddhism.

On anyone who says that the victims of torture are hateful people and deserve what they got, just move on to somebody who can be persuaded. Don't waste your time with lost souls.

[geek tragedy]

20. If you debate efficacy, you open the door to using it.

To put it another way, do we debate whether we should target the children of detainees with various kinds of abuse as part of interrogations?

If someone proposed it, would we debate efficacy?

[Jack Rabbit]

21. On the contrary, sir

I am very confident about the inefficacy of torture. It's a waste of time and money. Nothing a torture victim says can be taken at face value and therefore the torturers, if they're really looking for facts, must investigate any lead the victim gives them. And if the person one is trying to persuade is not convinced that torture is simply wrong. It doesn't matter of the method of torture is the Iron Maiden or sleep deprivation. So, you're right. We don't debate a specific method because they're all wrong.

Nevertheless, we can point to the inefficacy of torture. That's a solid fact. The only thing it's good for is getting the victim to say something he wouldn't say otherwise, such as "I'm a witch and I fuck the Devil three times a week" or "Saddam has a biochemical arsenal and the means to deliver it to American cities."

[geek tragedy]

22. There is enough noise and propaganda on the

other side to muddy the waters, plus you're fighting the entire history of TV and film depictions of torture. That it doesn't work is as counter-intuitive as it is true.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. So, how do you propse getting around that noise and propaganda?

What I propose is simply tell the truth. It can be supported with facts. Facts can be very persuasive to open minded people.

You can say "but it's immoral" until the cows come home, but you'll only get into a shouting match with Bill O'Reilly that resolves nothing. How do you demonstrate conclusively that Bill O'Reilly is a liar? If you make him cut the mike, you win.

[geek tragedy]

24. The simple truth is that civilized people do not torture.

An America that embraces torture would not be worth protecting or saving.

http://m.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Let me play Devil's advocate for a minute

Count me among Shep Smith's port side admirers, BTW.

The simple truth is that civilized people do not torture.

First, the United States didn't torture any one. Waterboarding may be unpleasant, but it isn't torture. We had the opinion of or staff attorneys to back it up.
Second, consider the scenario of the ticking bomb. You have only minutes to get information out of a terrorist. Are you going to be constrained by civilized niceties under circumstances?

An America that embraces torture would not be worth protecting or saving.

Oh, horsepucky. This is the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of the world. So what if we had to resort to enhanced interrogation techniques to protect or save it? You don't want to protect it? Why do you hate America?
[center]
* * *
[/center]
Please click here. I'm particulary proud of this puppy. It's the only piece that I wrote for DU's front page that ended up in a text book.

[SheilaT]

15. I can remember when we -- meaning this country and just about everyone in it --

roundly condemned regimes that tortured.

It's wrong. It doesn't work. Unfortunately, on movies and TV it is shown to be effective and most people think that if it's on a TV show or in a movie, it must be accurate.

[spanone]

19. exactly

[Mister Ed]

26. Condemning torture becasue it's ineffective...

...is like condemning a burglar because he got no loot from the break-in.

The burglary is the crime. It doesn't matter how much or how little the burglar gained in committing the crime.