MI5 cover up torture

[lord of flies]

Yes, Allah is great, Anarcho-syndicalism is the only way to Salvation, and unfortunately Santa won't be bringing you any presents because you have been a very, very naughty boy!

 

See, I don't need to explain why - here with lof, we take what people say at face value!

 

You've sufficiently proven that you don't understand the point of a thought experiment, or even the simple process of argument-rebuttal that makes a debate possible. Come back when you do.

 

PS. Maxwell's Demon isn't really under your bed, sleep tight.

So I finally responded to your childish point and this is your response?

 

When you say "it is alright to torture a human being," you are saying "it is alright to torture a human being." We are part of a global brotherhood, our actions do not end at ourselves. When we treat certain people as though they are subhuman, we have opened the door to treat all people as though they are subhuman - because we are all the same. Righteousness does not come about by treating only certain people as subhuman.

[213374U]

When you say "it is alright to torture a human being," you are saying "it is alright to torture a human being." We are part of a global brotherhood, our actions do not end at ourselves. When we treat certain people as though they are subhuman, we have opened the door to treat all people as though they are subhuman - because we are all the same. Righteousness does not come about by treating only certain people as subhuman.

Yes, that's nice. How about a relevant argument please?

 

Anything that imposes one's will over another's can be construed as relegating "certain people" (who?) to a "subhuman" state. And, uh, it happens everyday. Where's the outrage? Where's the difference?

 

edit: consistency

Edited February 13, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

As for whether its wrong. Yes it is. But that doesn't make it any less neccessary.

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what?

 

How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much.

 

@Wals: thanks for the recommendation. I'm adding that to my wishlist - even if it completely misses the point. I haven't disputed the effectiveness of interrogation methods that don't involve torture, even if it's impossible for any technique to reach 100% success rate. I also don't accept your rationale that using it would mean sacrificing one's morality, as that concedes the point that torture is the wrong choice. Sorry old boy but you're not going to win this one so easily.

 

Cool. I'm sure you'll enjoy the read.

 

I guess my line of argument is simply that one can make moral choices which are analogous with physical choices. That is I would not be consistent with my general experience that one can do oneself a disservice and yet achieve good for others. However, as I say, if you take what I hope is an enlightened view of many things then the 'moral' choice often happens to be the cynically self-serving one. I suppose mainly because immoral choices catalyse opposition to whatever you are doing. I say again that it's like asking me if it would be moral to stick my hand in the toaster - why would I do so?

 

To address your point more seriously, I would argue that functinoality is a component of morality. If I fling kittens into the sea I may be regarded as evil. But if those kittens are rabid, then I am protecting others. Or am I being crude?

 

@WoD

LOL yes, you cross-check. But all the cross referencing in the world won't help you if you're being fed gibberish. But, since you are a big fan of torture, please point me out a state which employs torture and has a great success record of counter-terrorism.

[Hildegard]

I fail to realize all the fuss about this? Intelligence services use the method of torture in order to extract information when they see it necessary and? This issue is actual only when that torture is exposed in public. Then they form inquires on who's to blame and that inquiry is downright hypocrisy, nothing else. Sometimes there's a scapegoat who takes the fall, sometimes there's not. All in all torture as a method of achieving certain goals remains, and like in this case - this isn't the first time MI5 use torture and it isn't the last time.

[Walsingham]

I fail to realize all the fuss about this? Intelligence services use the method of torture in order to extract information when they see it necessary and? This issue is actual only when that torture is exposed in public. Then they form inquires on who's to blame and that inquiry is downright hypocrisy, nothing else. Sometimes there's a scapegoat who takes the fall, sometimes there's not. All in all torture as a method of achieving certain goals remains, and like in this case - this isn't the first time MI5 use torture and it isn't the last time.

 

It's good to see you back, but I'm curious: have you read my initial comments? Surely torture is a repellent activity, we can at least agree that? If, as I suggest, it does not actually work, then it is both repellent and pointless.

[Walsingham]

I'll admit I'm confused, but judging by this piece (Daily Telegraph) it seems the MI5 did not actually use torture. But they failed to act on teh knowledge/supposition that torture was being used.

 

Go back to 2002, and imagine that you are working for MI5. You are told by the secret service of Pakistan that it has detained a Ethiopian-born British resident (Mohamed) whom it suspects of terrorist links. Do you want to go out and interview him? Of course you do.

 

You will strongly suspect that Pakistan, like many governments of Muslim countries, favours methods of interrogation that are not tolerated in the West. You will regret it, but it is not your job as a Security Service official to try to police this. If your service insisted on sending out torture inspectors in advance of any interview it might conduct, it would never be allowed to interview anyone.

 

Similarly with the Americans, a much closer and more important ally, and one operating much more strictly under rules. If they say to our secret services, as happened in this case,

[213374U]

To address your point more seriously, I would argue that functinoality is a component of morality. If I fling kittens into the sea I may be regarded as evil. But if those kittens are rabid, then I am protecting others. Or am I being crude?

Utilitarianism. So the question here would be, "is there any other way to deal with these rabid kittens"/"is flinging kittens the most conducive solution towards achieving a greater good"?

 

But then you have to consider moral minimums too, assume that there's such a thing as a greater good outside of general consensus, etc. In retrospect, I suppose I should haven't steered the discussion this way.

 

 

I fail to realize all the fuss about this? Intelligence services use the method of torture in order to extract information when they see it necessary and? This issue is actual only when that torture is exposed in public. Then they form inquires on who's to blame and that inquiry is downright hypocrisy, nothing else. Sometimes there's a scapegoat who takes the fall, sometimes there's not. All in all torture as a method of achieving certain goals remains, and like in this case - this isn't the first time MI5 use torture and it isn't the last time.

So, to preserve the rule of law, laws must be broken at times?

 

Doesn't that suggest that there's something wrong with the idea to begin with?

 

Long time no see, btw.

 

 

Surely torture is a repellent activity, we can at least agree that? If, as I suggest, it does not actually work, then it is both repellent and pointless.

Yes. YES.

 

That is the crux, actually, of the whole issue. Because, as with what lof suggested, whenever we go against someone else's will (be it by imprisoning, drafting into a military, or simply imposing laws), it's justified because it is assumed that something is achieved by that. Obviously, if that's false, it's in this particular case unnecessary cruelty and generally an arbitrary abuse - immoral. But if it, on the other hand, does serve a purpose (other than causing suffering, but that's a different story), things aren't so clear anymore.

 

From what I've been reading, at this point the discussion can't proceed further, as crucial facts can't be determined. More specifically, it's uncertain whether it can be established that torture is completely obsolete.

[Walsingham]

I agree that we are unlikely to be able to present any factual evidence on either side. Because now I think about it,

 

1. Using evidence that torture is ineffective would effectively be utilising torture to achieve an objective.

2. Evidence that torture works is unlikely to be presented in a formal state which could be cited here and

2b. anecdotal evidence has no control group

 

Nonetheless, I am content to make my stand based upon the case I have made so far. To whit:

 

A. States which are known to employ torture do not appear to enjoy greater success in their security efforts than those which do not. In fact the reverse.

B. Anecdotal evidence suggests that torture merely breaks the mind. A broken mind is not likely to deliver useful intelligence.

C. Torture precludes the possibility of turning a subject. Turning of subjects, in fighting organised crime and terrorism is absolutely key. Turned subjects win campaigns rather than averting incidents.

D. Non-torture methods (sometimes described as fully reversible effects) are known to be effective in many cases at both gathering low level detail, and turning subjects

 

As I would describe it the use of torture leads to the gathering of very variable and uncertain data of a low tactical grade. At no time would such an intelligence effort deliver strategic/operational/tactical 'chapter and verse' to the standard achieved by turned subjects. At the same time it endangers cooperation with key allies, and debases the officers and institutions which employ it.

 

Again, in terms of books I would suggest reading The Interrogator's War (I think it's by Chris Mackey); Big Boys Rules by Mark Urban; May the Lord in his Mercy be Kind to Belfast, by Tony Parker (not directly related but good for getting background); and just about anything on the FBI's fight against the mafia during the 1990s.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Walsingham

[Wrath of Dagon]

@WoD

LOL yes, you cross-check. But all the cross referencing in the world won't help you if you're being fed gibberish. But, since you are a big fan of torture, please point me out a state which employs torture and has a great success record of counter-terrorism.

Same with any intelligence, doesn't mean you don't collect intelligence. US has been successful using coercive interrogations, what you would term torture. Also I remember some Russians were kidnapped in Lebanon. The KGB sent the kidnapper's balls to his family. No Russians were kidnapped again.

[Zoraptor]

With torture you end up with a load of rubbish intel even from completely innocent targets while still getting the gibberish from the trained 'guilty' targets. And because the innocent people are telling you what you want to hear you are far more inclined to believe them.

 

Second example is rubbish, the Russians have been burying Chechen rebels in pigskins and such (as well as the more traditional torture methods) for ages and it's utterly pointless against a motivated foe. In the end they did exactly the same thing the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, paid off various internal factions to fight on their behalf.

[Sand]

The moral thing to do is not always the right thing to do, and sometimes the right thing to do is not the moral thing to do. The world is not black and white, but filled with shades of gray.

[Trenitay]

Same with any intelligence, doesn't mean you don't collect intelligence.

 

So false intelligence is better than none?

[~Di]

That is why you do not torture an individual with pain. You let them feel euphoric joy, pleasure, and complete contentment, then with one sudden move you take it away. Only to return it if they cooperate.

 

Aha! So we just hook them all on crack, then dangle the packet in front of their face when they get the shakes. Cool!

[Wrath of Dagon]

With torture you end up with a load of rubbish intel even from completely innocent targets while still getting the gibberish from the trained 'guilty' targets. And because the innocent people are telling you what you want to hear you are far more inclined to believe them.

 

Second example is rubbish, the Russians have been burying Chechen rebels in pigskins and such (as well as the more traditional torture methods) for ages and it's utterly pointless against a motivated foe. In the end they did exactly the same thing the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, paid off various internal factions to fight on their behalf.

No, your history is faulty, they won through brutal repression, not that I would ever advocate we do the same.

[Zoraptor]

No, the brutal repression didn't work, not the first time and not the second. The bunch of barely trained teenagers, FSB goons and moribund Soviet Dinosaurs that made up the official internal security forces and whose tactics of 'shoot and or blow everything up while interning and or torturing and or executing everything that moves' actually managed to lose the first war, after all.

 

Simply put the 'tame' Chechens- while hardly a pleasant and convivial bunch of enlightened SNAGs- were far far better at not alienating other Chechens, far better suited to gathering useful intelligence, more knowledgable of the environments and culture and were hence far more effective at fighting the 'bad' Chechens while not generating more bad ones to replace them. And as it stands now the Chechen unit of the Russian army is probably their second highest regarded one, behind their paratroops/ special forces.

[Walsingham]

No, the brutal repression didn't work, not the first time and not the second. The bunch of barely trained teenagers, FSB goons and moribund Soviet Dinosaurs that made up the official internal security forces and whose tactics of 'shoot and or blow everything up while interning and or torturing and or executing everything that moves' actually managed to lose the first war, after all.

 

Simply put the 'tame' Chechens- while hardly a pleasant and convivial bunch of enlightened SNAGs- were far far better at not alienating other Chechens, far better suited to gathering useful intelligence, more knowledgable of the environments and culture and were hence far more effective at fighting the 'bad' Chechens while not generating more bad ones to replace them. And as it stands now the Chechen unit of the Russian army is probably their second highest regarded one, behind their paratroops/ special forces.

 

This certainly accords with what I've heard. Rather than your cheerful but strange notion that the KGB succeeded in Chechneya. I suppose they also succeeded in Afghanistan using the same methods?

[Junai]

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, the brutal repression didn't work, not the first time and not the second. The bunch of barely trained teenagers, FSB goons and moribund Soviet Dinosaurs that made up the official internal security forces and whose tactics of 'shoot and or blow everything up while interning and or torturing and or executing everything that moves' actually managed to lose the first war, after all.

 

Simply put the 'tame' Chechens- while hardly a pleasant and convivial bunch of enlightened SNAGs- were far far better at not alienating other Chechens, far better suited to gathering useful intelligence, more knowledgable of the environments and culture and were hence far more effective at fighting the 'bad' Chechens while not generating more bad ones to replace them. And as it stands now the Chechen unit of the Russian army is probably their second highest regarded one, behind their paratroops/ special forces.

 

This certainly accords with what I've heard. Rather than your cheerful but strange notion that the KGB succeeded in Chechneya. I suppose they also succeeded in Afghanistan using the same methods?

Then you heard wrong, the second war was every bit as brutal as the first one, except now they actually had a leader who was competent in addition to being ruthless. Afghanistan is much bigger and more foreign to Russians than Chechnya, and still Afghans couldn't win until US went in full bore to help them. Anyway, I'm not arguing for the efficacy of brutality in winning wars, but let's not distort historical fact to make dubious points.

[Walsingham]

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the efficacy of brutality in winning wars, but let's not distort historical fact to make dubious points.

 

Then what precisely are you waffling on about?

[Orogun01]

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the efficacy of brutality in winning wars, but let's not distort historical fact to make dubious points.

 

Then what precisely are you waffling on about?

The opposite?

[Darth InSidious]

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the efficacy of brutality in winning wars, but let's not distort historical fact to make dubious points.

 

Then what precisely are you waffling on about?

His theme is oon,

and alwey evere was:

Radix malorem est caritas.

[Moose]

In the future we'll probably be able to extract all the information we want out with a needle, and reprogram the subject to be happy and productive citizen.

[Orogun01]

In the future we'll probably be able to extract all the information we want out with a needle, and reprogram the subject to be happy and productive citizen.

Clockwork Orange style.

Still not moral

[Walsingham]

I'd ahve thought it would be far more effective to tap into the preconscious. Show them a montage of images, at a speed which the mind can take in but not process. Measure electrical activity in the brain, and retinal movement. See which ones trigger unusual responses. You'd be able to see what images they recognised, which were alarming etc etc.

[Orogun01]

I'd ahve thought it would be far more effective to tap into the preconscious. Show them a montage of images, at a speed which the mind can take in but not process. Measure electrical activity in the brain, and retinal movement. See which ones trigger unusual responses. You'd be able to see what images they recognised, which were alarming etc etc.

There is no way to translate that into meaningful information, there are many images that are bound to cause responses due to nature or the nurture of the individual. Is less effective and the information, more confusing.