Is It Possible to Oppose and Accept Torture Simultaneously?

[Burnsys]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174858,00.html

John Gibson talking about torture tell us this:

For the record, I'm against torture.

I'm also against outlawing it. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. It may take a nimble mind to manage both ideas, but it's worth the effort.

Doublethink means, according to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:

the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 35, 176-177)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

 

[Evo]

Burnsys, you forgot to state what you want to discuss. Political torture? Then the post goes here, but you need to state what in the linked article you wish to discuss. Doublethink? Then the post goes in Social sciences.

I am not going to allow any more threads that do not have a clearly defined topic for discussion. Everyone needs to clearly state what they wish to discuss. Otherwise you get 5 different interpretations of what the topic is and it's just a mess.

 

[Burnsys]

The point of the thread is to show a new tendecy in the media (and so in the population) to use doublethink, as we are against torture but we need it... or we are invading irak becouse it has WMD but we use them... or we need to get ride of a cruel dictator, but we support a lot of others dictators...or we stand for democracy in the world but if we don't like a democracy we bomb it back to the stone age..

Doublethink: holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously
somenthing Americans are getting used to...

 

[Smurf]

That statement is inconsistant in oh so many ways.

 

[russ_watters]

The point of the thread is to show a new tendecy in the media (and so in the population) to use doublethink...

Could you explain your case for why you consider that article an example of doublethink? Because:

...as we are against torture but we need it...

That is not what the author says. The author specifically says he is against torture, he does not say 'we need it'.

 

[Burnsys]

Could you explain your case for why you consider that article an example of doublethink? Because: That is not what the author says. The author specifically says he is against torture, he does not say 'we need it'.

I thought we had learned that legislating rules and procedures for the CIA is not such a good thing — at least not in all cases — and we ought to be careful about putting stops in the way of spooks who are only trying to protect us.

And what does he means there?? maybe i am not understanding ok, but he is saying torture should not be outlawed, in other words Torture should be legal?? and he is saying CIA agents should be not be stopped from using torture??

 

[russ_watters]

And what does he means there?? maybe i am not understanding ok, but he is saying torture should not be outlawed, in other words Torture should be legal?? and he is saying CIA agents should be not be stopped from using torture??

I think this is just a case of you misunderstanding. He is saying it should be legal but also saying that we should not use it. Those are two different things and the reason for that (as he explained) is not so that we can use it, but rather so that we can confuse our enemies about our intentions.

 

[Art]

I think this is just a case of you misunderstanding. He is saying it should be legal but also saying that we should not use it. Those are two different things and the reason for that (as he explained) is not so that we can use it, but rather so that we can confuse our enemies about our intentions.

But how will the enemy be confused? If you say categorically it will not be used then even if torture is legal your enemies will know it is a hollow threat. In fact the only way to convince them it is real is to actually torture them but that contradicts your statement that it will not be used. Somewhat paradoxical don't you think?

 

[Anttech]

reminds me of this phrase "possesion is 9/10 the law"

 

[Burnsys]

I think this is just a case of you misunderstanding. He is saying it should be legal but also saying that we should not use it. Those are two different things and the reason for that (as he explained) is not so that we can use it, but rather so that we can confuse our enemies about our intentions.

And if it is legal, then what will stop you from using it??
It will be legal, the media will be saying they are using it, but you will not be using it? that is nonsense...

 

[russ_watters]

And if it is legal, then what will stop you from using it??

Ethics.

It will be legal, the media will be saying they are using it, but you will not be using it?

Huh? Why would the media say we are using it if we aren't (yeah, I see the irony in that...)?

...that is nonsense...

That's exactly the point.

 

[russ_watters]

Look, Burnsys, this is very similar to nuclear deterrence. Every President since WWII has had a policy that included the use of nuclear weapons and most did actual work toward developing new ones. So did that affect the perceptions of our enemies regarding our willingness to use them? You bet!

 

[Art]

Look, Burnsys, this is very similar to nuclear deterrence. Every President since WWII has had a policy that included the use of nuclear weapons and most did actual work toward developing new ones. So did that affect the perceptions of our enemies regarding our willingness to use them? You bet!

You're analogy doesn't stand up. The US hasn't used it's nuclear deterrent; well not since other countries had a deterrent of their own; whereas I don't know whether you've noticed or not but the US HAS been torturing prisoners. This new proposed legislation is designed to stop them.

 

[Skyhunter]

Ethics.

Whose ethics?

Politicians in general?

George Bush in particular?

Bush was quoted in the New York Times defending the branding of fraternity pledges with a hot coat hanger, saying the resulting wounds resembled "only a cigarette burn."

Your reasoning here is terribly flawed. The terrorist rely on instances such as the US torturing suspects to fuel their propaganda and recruitment campaign.

Instead of addressing the root causes of terrorism directed towards the US, this just feeds the resentment. Terrorist are not States. Condoning Torture, and I would suggest that refusing to make it illegal leaves one with the perception that we are endorsing it.

To end terrorism we must address the root cause. Poverty, ignorance and oppression.

If you wish to perpetuate terrorism, just keep thinking and acting like a terrorist.

 

[Burnsys]

Ethics.

Something your government knows nothing about.

Huh? Why would the media say we are using it if we aren't (yeah, I see the irony in that...)?

becouse you want your enemys to think you are using it?

Look, Burnsys, this is very similar to nuclear deterrence. Every President since WWII has had a policy that included the use of nuclear weapons and most did actual work toward developing new ones. So did that affect the perceptions of our enemies regarding our willingness to use them? You bet!

But at that time, the rusians had the chance to retaliate...
What is stoping US from using torture?? the fear that terrorist use torture too?
Invalid analogy

Edit: And US used nuclear weapons when they had the chance and when the enemy wasnt going to retaliate...

 

[Anttech]

Ethics.

Ethics? A politician with Ethics? Either on the right or left we all know they have none...

Come on Russ, you are better than this, how can you honestly say this:

Those are two different things and the reason for that (as he explained) is not so that we can use it, but rather so that we can confuse our enemies about our intentions.

With a straight face..
especially when just before you state:

The author specifically says he is against torture, he does not say 'we need it'

The message that is pertained in both these statements contradict one another!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This whole notion of deterrence is absurd. We are talking about people who strap bombs to their children and themselves.

Expect US soldiers to be tortured as a direct result of this controversy.

No useful information can be expected from a person who will say anything to stop the pain.

Innocent people will be tortured

This opens the door for the government to torture US citizens.

Fox news is selling double-think. You either sanction torture or you don’t. I think the comparison to Orwell is completely appropriate.

This is like some kind of nightmare that won’t end. Either we stop this outrage now or so ends the moral high ground for the U.S. Comparisons to the Nazi’s or worse would be entirely appropriate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And if it is legal, then what will stop you from using it??

Ethics.

Sorry Russ but generally when something is unethical laws are instituted to prevent it from occurring. To say "Torture is unethical but I will not prevent it" isn't exactly contractictory but it is definitely cowardly.

 

[loseyourname]

Ethics? A politician with Ethics? Either on the right or left we all know they have none...

Just a small quibble, but it's not the politicians that are in a position to either torture someone or not. It's the soldiers and their officers. Hopefully they have a better ethical sense than a politician does, but even so, I agree that their should be a clear-cut policy here. Trying to confuse the enemy just ends up confusing our own troops, who then end up tortuing people.

That said, Gibson is not holding an inconsistent or hypocritical position. It's just a stupid position.

 

[devil-fire]

Ethics.

the "ethics" of the CIA is to do everything in their power to gather intelligence. its perfecty ethical for the cia to torture people to gather information if they deem it worth the time to do so. this isn't the boyscouts were talking about here.

 

[rachmaninoff]

That said, Gibson is not holding an inconsistent or hypocritical position.

Can you clarify this? It appears inconsistent to me:

For one thing, as you have seen in the news lately, it has been revealed that the U.S. maintains a string of secret prisons in eastern Europe where we have stashed captured Al Qaeda guys. And I am not in favor of telling these guys what we won't do.
...
Sure it's U.S. policy to not torture, but it shouldn't be so crystal clear that even a kid educated in a madrassa and trained as a bomb builder is certain that there is law that prevents torture. We would like him to be in doubt on that point.

contrasted with

I'm against torture.

The entirety of the editorial, with just those three words excised, form a consistent defense of the policy of sanctioning torture, in circumstances. It's rather toothless, IMO, to say "I'm against routine, pubically advertised, unnecessary torture... when it doesn't get useful results".

 

[Smurf]

That said, Gibson is not holding an inconsistent or hypocritical position. It's just a stupid position.

Read it again:

I think McCain correctly articulates the ideals of this country, which are important, and which would include a rejection of an institutional policy of torture of prisoners or captives.

Next paragraph:

However, I don't think Vice President Cheney is out of line asking for an exemption from the CIA for a law that makes torture by U.S. government agents illegal.

So, he believes that:
1) Institutional torture should not happen.
and, simultaneously
2) The CIA should be permitted to commit torture.

In the context of talking about a government institution, it's will is determined by it's policy. We do not presume it has freewill. We do not presume it "wants" anything. If we want to stop the CIA from doing something, we make it policy not to do it. We make it illegal. If we state that it should not happen, but we also state that it should not be made illegal, we are being inconsistant.

This is not a debate on, for example, prostitution where, for example, Townsend's position is that it is immoral and that it shouldn't happen, but, because we presume humans to have free will and to have rights, Townsend would say that it should not be illegal, because that would violate their rights.

As I stated above we do not presume the same about the CIA, therefore we can not make the same argument. If we say that something should not happen but do not make it policy, and illegal we are clearly being inconsistant. According to Burnseyes, this is also Doublespeak.

...


Not that we should take this guy seriously anyways. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116991,00.html

 

[rachmaninoff]

By the way, I entirely agree with the Orwellian assessment; this is the most disgusting form of "spin" we've seen yet. The author has no morals. With his complacency, is there anything he wouldn't do, in self-interest?

For the record, here's possibly the most disturbing statement ever published in print so far this year (excluding the Fox cable network):

I'm with Sen. John McCain on this. First of all, he was tortured. So if anybody should know if it works or not, it's him.

I'll let this one stand without commentary.

 

[loseyourname]

In the context of talking about a government institution, it's will is determined by it's policy. We do not presume it has freewill. We do not presume it "wants" anything. If we want to stop the CIA from doing something, we make it policy not to do it. We make it illegal. If we state that it should not happen, but we also state that it should not be made illegal, we are being inconsistant.

Saying that doesn't make it so, smurf. There are plenty of unwritten rules in place with government institutions. For instance, until Roosevelt, no president had ever served more than two terms. It was legal to do so, but Washington established a precedent of two terms and no one had ever broken it by seeking a third term. Nobody ever saw a need to codify this rule until it was broken. Even after it had been broken, it would not have been inconsistent for someone to say that no president should ever seek a third term, but that we should not outlaw it.

Inconsistency is purely a matter of logic. Two statements are inconsistent with one another when it is impossible for both to be true. This holds for imperatives as well. In fact, he really only seems to be making one statement: It should be against official institutional policy for any agency other than the CIA to conduct torture, but it should be only an informal policy for the CIA. Again, I think this is a stupid position to hold, but it is not logically impossible for that statement to be true.

As I stated above we do not presume the same about the CIA, therefore we can not make the same argument.

Just to add, this line of argumentation doesn't make any sense. It's as if you're saying that the CIA will engage in any and every possible behavior that is not explicitly outlawed. Agents do have free will to some extent - they make judgement calls. They don't do every single thing it is within their lawful right to do. Heck, to do so would require infinite time, which they rather obviously do not have.

Again, I agree with you that, if we want an agency to not engage in a certain behavior, then the smart thing to do is to outlaw it. It's moronic to hold a different position, but it does not entail a logical impossibility.

If we say that something should not happen but do not make it policy, and illegal we are clearly being inconsistant. According to Burnseyes, this is also Doublespeak.

No, we are being confused, unclear, sending mixed messages, and leaving open doors that should not be open, but we are not making two imperative statements that logically cannot both be true.

 

[Smurf]

Saying that doesn't make it so, smurf. There are plenty of unwritten rules in place with government institutions. For instance, until Roosevelt, no president had ever served more than two terms. It was legal to do so, but Washington established a precedent of two terms and no one had ever broken it by seeking a third term. Nobody ever saw a need to codify this rule until it was broken. Even after it had been broken, it would not have been inconsistent for someone to say that no president should ever seek a third term, but that we should not outlaw it.

Okay, fair enough, I guess. But (I'm sure you'll agree) it's stupid.

The fact that the two term rule was broken certainly doesn't help the argument any either, hehe.

 

[russ_watters]

Just a small quibble, but it's not the politicians that are in a position to either torture someone or not. It's the soldiers and their officers. Hopefully they have a better ethical sense than a politician does, but even so, I agree that their should be a clear-cut policy here. Trying to confuse the enemy just ends up confusing our own troops, who then end up tortuing people.

That said, Gibson is not holding an inconsistent or hypocritical position. It's just a stupid position.

Just for the record, I agree with loseyourname's position. I'm just explaining Gibson's position.

And btw, guys, Gibson is a reporter, not a politician. Gibson saying these things is different from if, say Rumsfeld would say these things.

 

[russ_watters]

BFor the record, here's possibly the most disturbing statement ever published in print so far this year (excluding the Fox cable network): [statement about McCain]
I'll let this one stand without commentary.

Well, could you comment on that, please? Why do you find that statement disturbing?

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah, rachmaninoff. Isn't McCain's position that torture does not work? He's the one that tried to introduce the anti-torture piece into legislation in the first place. Since you seem to agree with him, why are you disturbed when someone else does?

 

[Art]

I'm not sure if this is doublespeak or just double dutch.

I've highlighted in the passage below the actual quotes from Bush. It's difficult to decipher exactly what he is saying as it appears to be self-contradictory.
It sounds as if he is saying first we do not torture then that we do where necessary to protect America and then that they don't want to be doing anything illegal which I presume is why he doesn't want this bill passed making torture illegal? Then again maybe he just doesn't have a clue what he is talking about

PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - The U.S. government is aggressively taking action to protect Americans from terrorism but "we do not torture," President Bush said on Monday, responding to criticism of reported secret CIA prisons and the handling of terrorism suspects.

Bush defended his administration's efforts to stop the U.S. Congress from imposing rules on the handling of terrorism suspects.

The United States was sharply criticised for its handling of detainees after photographs of guards abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shocked the world.

U.S. forces have held hundreds of detainees at known facilities outside the United States since the September 11, 2001, attacks, such as Guantanamo Bay. But senior leaders of al Qaeda who have captured, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have been kept in secret detention facilities overseas.

Bush did not confirm or deny the existence of CIA secret prisons that The Washington Post disclosed last week, and would not address demands by the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to the suspects reportedly held at them.

"We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice," Bush said at a news conference with Panamanian President Martin Torrijos. "We are gathering information about where the terrorists might be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans," he said.

"Anything we do to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law," Bush said. "We do not torture. And therefore we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible to do our job."

Vice President Dick Cheney has been spearheading an effort on Capitol Hill to have the CIA exempt from an amendment by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

The exemption would cover the secret prisons that the Post said were located in several eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept.

"I'm confident that when people see the facts, that they'll recognise that we've got more work to do and that we must protect ourselves in a way that is lawful," Bush said.

 

[devil-fire]

does anyone personally believe that the restrictions on torture should not apply to the cia?

it seems some are debating if the said comments are agreeable while others are just clarifying or rephrasing the comments while equally disagreeing with them

 

[devil-fire]

I'm not sure if this is doublespeak or just double dutch.
I've highlighted in the passage below the actual quotes from Bush. It's difficult to decipher exactly what he is saying as it appears to be self-contradictory.
It sounds as if he is saying first we do not torture then that we do where necessary to protect America and then that they don't want to be doing anything illegal which I presume is why he doesn't want this bill passed making torture illegal? Then again maybe he just doesn't have a clue what he is talking about

it sounds as if he trying to give a potentialy effective tool to his intelligence gathering people that happens to be discribed as torture and wants to advocate it while avoiding the negative connotations with the word torture

 

[Art]

does anyone personally believe that the restrictions on torture should not apply to the cia?
it seems some are debating if the said comments are agreeable while others are just clarifying or rephrasing the comments while equally disagreeing with them

Personally speaking I think torture is abhorant and should never be used by countries which wish to be considered civilised.
The argument that it is a valid tool in the fight against terrorism is self-defeating as lowering yourself to the same level as terrorists makes you as bad as them.

 

[Anttech]

Yes it should... I trust your CIA less then you care to believe. On top of this I aggree with Art that it is a disgusting practise