Why do these rational people you keep talking about demand airtight evidence for my arguments, but just believe anything Cheney says?

Do you really think you are going to change the mind of someone like Strike-3 based on moral arguments? The dude just came out as pro-genocide. Your example of a rational person turns out to be a pyschopath.

The quick investigation is the key point. It's verifiable known unknowns where it's most obviously dubious to insist torture cannot be effective. it doesn't have to be very idealized, we can easily imagine near battlefield torture used to locate camps/people who's location can be quickly verified.

We must not allow the conversation to become 'when is torture effective' because we will lose that argument time and time again and despite the good intentions if we use the argument that torture isn't effective we are in reality having the argument about when torture is effective.

I agree that it's somewhat off the point of the CIA torture and from what I hear Obama is due lots of credit for banning it and not waiting for a report saying it was ineffective before banning it.

No one's saying that torture being ineffective is the only argument being made; it's just a cherry on top.

Over time we convert most people with the moral and correct arguments. it's no different to issues like chokeholds by the police, 'we' have moved the norm in the UK and it's moving in the USA in the same way if lagging bit. It's not done with arguments about how ineffectual it is, it's done by addressing the moral arguments like 'done something wrong don't care what happens to them' and basic human rights type arguments. Eventually nearly everyone will think it is wrong including the police.

Torture was and is being limited by legislation that bans it for being a violation of human rights. it didn't entirely stop it this due to some wriggle room that was exploited with the arguments you think are helpful.

That's clear except it's not a cherry it's an olive.

(My apologies to olives).

make a nice cake with olives on top and the discussion will be about the olives not the cake and not in a yummy way.

Oh man, I always loved this argument so much. "Like, in order to teach soldiers to resist torture, we have to expose them to torture techniques a little bit in a controlled environment. But if Americans are applying these techniques to other Americans then it can't be torture! Otherwise the instructors would have to be charged with war crimes! QED mother****ers!"

All this bloviating by a bunch of fat-assed politicians sleeping in their comfy DC townhouses, strikes me as unseemly. People are being decapitated, raped, and murdered by Islamic terrorists. Our own soldiers are living in hellholes, being shot at, blown up, killed, losing limbs, suffering traumatic brain injuries, etc. defending our country. Over 3k people were murdered on 9/11 in the USA, and these same terrorists would love nothing more than to get hold of a nuke and wipe entire US cities off the map.

And so during interrogations we are depriving them of sleep, having them stand in uncomfortable positions, and playing loud music to try and get information to prevent more deaths? Boo hoo.

Your "purity of argument" take is nonsensical. If torture is shown to be ineffective, rational people will agree to banning torture regardless of their morality. You are saying that I shouldn't mention that torture is ineffective even though that argument would end the practice of torture. Instead I should keep hammering away at the moral argument because eventually everyone will agree with me--even though you have no rational basis to believe that is true. Meanwhile, torture continues.

Sorry, but this is a really insane idea.

Are there not drugs that make people talk? I'm fine with that if so

You cannot show it is ineffective, rational people will not leap from 'was done ineffectively' or 'was ineffective' to 'it is ineffective' because it is an irrational leap to make.

It wont end torture because it's a dubious argument at best and no-one really believes it.

It's a real problem, one much discussed but counter-productive dubious arguments is not a good approach. Noble lies are an interesting issue but this is not a noble lie.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Break_a_Terrorist

You should read it, it's a good book.

Funny you should mention that, because time is a flat circle

Cliffs: the CIA does a lot of **** that's simultaneously absurd and heinous, then destroys evidence and lies to government officials to protect itself. No one is ever punished.

Yeah, how dare they have natural resources that we want!

this has been pointed out to the pro-torturers a few times in the past few pages, but they don't get it.

Could they? Absolutely. Do they have the will? Nope.

Fearmongering: We must torture because them subhumans are so SCARY we must become subhuman too!

So the list of motives for torture:
*Revenge
*Fearmongering
*Partisan defensiveness
*Get information about ongoing and future terrorist activities using a method designed to elicit false information

Motives to not torture:
*Justice
*To get information about ongoing and future terrorist activities using methods which were not designed to elicit false information.

False equivalency. Sleep deprivation does not equal decapitation. We are not "becoming" the terrorists by using these techniques to get information.

I'm open to arguments that it's not effective, but the moral argument that "it makes us no better than them" is way off base imo. We're at war with a murderous enemy who has already committed mass murder in the US and would love nothing more than to top themselves.

Ugh. I don't think you know what a rational person is. You keep saying that rational people will ignore evidence and keep believing in TV shows.

You don't get to tell other people what they believe. Now, you may believe that torture is effective. Please show the evidence that this is the case.

It is not a lie to say that torture is ineffective. This is what the evidence shows. You keep treating "well it could work someday, maybe" as actual evidence.

When the dude who designed the CIA program is saying things like this, you know it will not end well... Bloomberg

Strike, I hate to break it to you but this post is not you not caring about torture. This is you in favor of torture of anyone a politician calls a terrorist:

What you're on the record not caring about when it comes to torture is the torture of innocent civilians. That is what you stated you don't care about, which is still every bit a barbaric position.

Seems right but pressure is building so I can still dream that one day those involved (particularly some Brits) will at least lose a tiny bit of sleep over it.

Ok you've just gone silly now.

I'm silly? You are the one who is arguing that it is impossible to convince rational people that torture is ineffective.

That's right, and really really wanting to be able to do it wont make it possible.

The best you could convince someone rational of is that is hasn't been done effectively.

would it be possible to convince a rational person that bribing suspects with ice cream is ineffective?