Because if the CIA was just ignoring the rules, they wouldn't be trying to lawyer their way around what's "enhanced interrogation" versus "torture." They'd just be pulling out fingernails.

> Ignoring international conventions on the rights of prisoners of war

You fundamentally misunderstand the rationale behind these conventions. The reason we don't torture the soldiers of civilized nations is because we assume that they will reciprocate when it comes to our soldiers. Stateless militants can't be expected to do that, so the rationale for following those international conventions disappears.

Anyhow, there is also the Convention Against Torture isn't even related to conflict or POWs, but applies universally, and obliges parties to it (including the US) to prosecute (not merely avoid engaging in) torture, whoever does it, wherever they do it, and in whatever context they do it. Torturers are hostis humani generis, the common enemy of all mankind.

Also the fact that these conventions were valid for any war the signing country was involved in, not only those against other who signed (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to point in the same direction, no?

Also, downvote brigade: Fine, I totally agree that rayiner was downvoted and flagkilled twice. rayiner deserved that IMO.

However stop downvoting when he or others are providing insights, even if that insight is uncomfortable, OK?

It's true that is the scale of awful behavior, the CIA's program would rate something like 3 or 4 out of 10 - other regimes have engaged in things like pulling out people's fingernails, administering electric shocks, actually killing or raping family members rather than simply threatening to do so so, and worse - much worse. It's also true that atrocious actions by the US during the 'war on terror' are less bad than prior atrocities in previous conflicts like Vietnam or the Phillippine-American war of 1899-1902, a largely-forgotten conflict which would be considered genocidal by modern standards (and which is very much worth studying because it has so many similarities to the war on terror - gruesome murders by the rebels, widespread use of waterboarding by the US (then called the 'water cure'), subsequent political fallout and so on).

But even when we look at these things from a purely utilitarian standpoint rather than an idealistic one, the fact is that it our ability to project soft power - that is, to promulgate our values internationally so as to further our interests - is severely impaired by our all-too-apparent willingness to abandon the standards we propound in the areas of human rights and so forth. I'm not too impressed by the authoritarian regime in Cuba, for example, but the fact that we have a mini-Gulag in Guantanamo Bay makes it impossible for the US to criticize that regime in any meaningful fashion - even when it does the same or worse, it can fall back on a Tu quoque argument, and while that's a logical fallacy it's nevertheless a very effective one. On a more serious level, it has severely blunted our ability (along with that of the UK and other coalition countries, albeit to a lesser extent) to put pressure on North Korea over that country's appalling human rights record.

The basic problem for the US is this: we don't necessarily aspire to hegemony, but a de facto hegemony is the best guarantor of our long-term interests. We can't impose that by force, or want to, but we can get close by exercising soft economic and ideological power backed up with the availability of force against those who directly threaten our interests. At times the world is too messy and we'd like to take our ball and go home - let everyone else think what they like, the US land mass and economy is large enough for us to function as an autarky in an unconnected world. But the reality of a global technological world is that oceans no longer serve as impassable moats; disengagement and indifference to the emergence of other hegemonic powers would sooner or later result in disadvantage.

In war, we justify things a lot more morally ambiguous than a police officer shooting an armed criminal that's an imminent threat. Workers at a munitions factory who are just carting things around? Those folks get killed in war in airstrikes that are totally consistent with international conventions. Is waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worse than blowing up some sap who just showed up to work on the wrong day? I just find it ridiculous to play that line drawing exercise.

I agree 100% with the rest of your analysis, though. Whatever the moral case may be, we shouldn't engage in enhanced interrogation because it yields low-value or even misleading information at the cost of tremendous political capital.

I agree that trying to establish bright-line rules often seems a futile exercise because it's so easy to come up with ethical inconsistencies. I do have a theory about the moral calculus of conflict but it's inchoate and this comment isn't really the place for it. To sketch the outline, though, the severity of a given outcome in a conflict can be mitigated by the degree of risk involved in bringing it about; so while the imposition involved in sleep deprivation or keeping someone cold is mild compared to someone being horribly maimed by a piece of shrapnel, it's the massive prior asymmetry between captor and prisoner that's problematic in the case of torture. Of course, you could argue that this asymmetry is also strong where only one side in a conflict has an air force or where one side is using remote-controlled military assets like drones, whose 'pilots' experience no physical risks whatsoever. This is going to become a huge problem within a few short years with robotic infantry assets - as soon as they're 'good enough' to deploy effectively there will be huge pressure to do so, even if they are just slightly extending forward positions over a short distance.

Yes. Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is viewed by the vast majority to be morally far much worse than bombing a munitions factory. That is why doing it costs the tremendous political capital.

The deaths caused by the aggressor of a war are not consistent with international conventions, they are, in the words of a judge in at the Nuremberg tribunals, the consequence of the ultimate war crime.

The moral high ground is very valuable real estate indeed, and the US does hurt itself by doing things that reflect poorly in the eyes of the global public. But we're rightfully and pragmatically more concerned about artillery and soldiers occupying plain old fashioned military high ground. We interrogate to prevent people who openly wish us harm from gaining the power to turn their words into deeds. You can always earn cool points by pointing out historical atrocities, but in the end what matters is that we're still here, alive and prospering. Do you honestly believe that if the US government always behaved like perfect angels that N Korea or Cuba would suddenly listen to our moral lectures? That our behavior would somehow inspire them to change the fundamental cultural mores that come from decades of national poverty and the mindset that comes along with it? Because I don't think it will. Human rights violations will still exist even if we behave with moral perfection. Sometimes the best way to stop the bad guys isn't to set a good example, but instead to waterboard someone until he tells you where to send a SEAL team.

For better or worse, the US has the sanctioned role of providing security for the world. If that means we have to strip someone naked and throw them against a wall then so be it. It's unpleasant, but it sure as hell beats the alternatives.

Much as police violence in custody has often been defended with the argument that the police were attempting to obtain information that would lead to a conviction.

It isn't done for revenge or in situations where the stakes are anything less than the life and death of innocent people. Someone who has information on a literal ticking time bomb is the very definition of a threat to the public.

Ostensibly, but for one thing there is usually no actual ticking time bomb because we don't live in the universe of 24, and for another if there was a ticking time bomb there'd be no way to protect against misinformation about its location until it was too late.

The TTB argument implicitly assumes that intelligence gained through torture will be correct and actionable, but this isn't backed up by evidence. If the bomb is on West 63rd street and the torture subject directs you to East 47th street, you won't know you've been lied to until you get there and find out there is no bomb. Conversely, what if the person does not actually know what you want to know, like the 26 detainees mentioned in the report who were picked up despite not being suitable targets for interrogation? When they keep saying they don't know where the ticking time bomb is, how do you tell that they're not just holding out on you?

For better or worse, the US has the sanctioned role of providing security for the world.

Hmmm, no. As I outlined above, its in our interests to hold such a position at present. I think you need to think a bit longer about this, because your views on this subject seem rather shallow.

Actually, it doesn't, as the CIA admits. So much so that they had to lie about its effectiveness.

I can imagine torture that's worse than death. I don't think any of the things revealed in the article qualify. Which is precisely what I'm getting at. If you're not a pacifist and you think it's okay to kill people in war, I think you have to go to pretty tortured lengths to say that these enhanced interrogation techniques are unjustifiable in light of that. If you're a pacifist who doesn't think that killing is justifiable in the first place, that's a totally different thing.

Reading Solzhenitsyn in the context of today's news might be worthwhile for people. If people can read all that, note the similarities between the NKVD's tactics and attitude toward the law and the CIA's, and walk away contentedly thinking to themselves "but our guys have good intentions and are a lot more selective!" we are hosed as a country.

I understand the frustration, but please do not violate the site guidelines like this.

The comment would be appropriate and stronger with just the first question.

I imagine this thread is all sorts of "fun" for you right now....

Thanks for respecting the guidelines. It matters a lot for established users to set good examples.

Anyway, thanks for your work in keeping the place in line.

Also, just being locked up with nothing to do can be painful in itself.

Well consider me convinced! We definitely need to limit immigration to America otherwise we could end up with large numbers of people whose cultural norms allow them to condone torture and try to make jokes about it! Can you imagine what a cluster fuck this nation would be if the majority view was that repeated anal rape leading to multiple attempts at self-harm was something to be made light of!? No we definitely need to make sure that we only accept a small enough number of immigrants that we can ensure that things like the concept of the rule of law, the right to trial, and the right to not be, you know FUCKING TORTURED, are fully assimilated by them. Gods knows what things would be like if they somehow managed to not internalize these concepts.

You're also making assumptions that people die instantly on the battlefield and in drone attacks. That's not the case. They can (and do) die in slow, lingering, painful ways in such cases.

My point is being locked up indefinitely and tortured again and again. Waiting for pain is also painful unless you are very mentally strong.

Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.