CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's the relevant kind of harm we're interested in. You don't have to guess about its effectiveness. It's 100% effective so far. .

This is by far the most amusing thing on the thread. Not only is it a fallacy of an appeal to consequences, but it is selective bias, a couple of examples out of a couple of examples, ignoring the unknown failures.
No one knows exactly or even approximately how many times this method has been used in dirty little rendition holes all over the world by the vile so-called 'security services' os the USA, but they can only find a couple of contentious examples of claimed but dubious success, and one of those was from a person already agreeing to talk.

[fiveredapples]

Goooooood Morning, Vietnam!

Well, let's see what the Mental Midget Menagerie Ceaselessly Undermining 'Murica (aka MMMCUM) has to say today. I'm sure there are lots and lots of comments, most of which will have nothing to do with my arguments, so I will mostly ignore those, as there's only one of me and I don't have all day for your obfuscation and carping.

MMMCUM member Vegetariantaxidermy wrote thus:

I can't even think of a scenario where torture would 'save lives'. It might elicit a false confession to events that have already occurred, but what use is that to anyone?

Typical anti-facts nonsense. You don't have to "think of a scenario", Einstein. There are three cases of CIA Water Boarding we're talking about, and all three produced valuable information, which was confirmed and acted upon. So, while you muse about magical possible worlds, we're living in reality, a reality in which CIA water boarding is 100% reliable and useful. Notice how this mental eunuch doesn't even try to tackle the argument. This is carping. Next...

Londoner (membership in MMMCUM unknown at this time) writes:

You presumably accept that waterboarding causes some suffering, otherwise it wouldn't be any use for extracting information. If we consider it is moral to do that, why stop with waterboarding? Why wouldn't it also be moral to inflict severe pain and severe suffering to achieve the same ends?

I accept that CIA water boarding causes discomfort. Let's stick with the UN definition, since you guys seem happy to do so and so am I. The clause is "severe pain or severe suffering", and if we're talking about suffering simpliciter, then I will concede that it causes suffering, which is meant to capture the mental suffering, as opposed to the 'pain', which is meant to capture the physical suffering.

Why stop at water boarding? Notice your question is a slippery slope question. One simple answer is that water boarding works, so there's no need to go beyond water boarding (QED). You're saying that somehow, in some world where logic doesn't apply, there's no necessary argument needed to go from permitting suffering to permitting severe suffering. But that seems to require an argument on YOUR PART, not mine, as I'm not advocating for severe pain or severe suffering. I'm advocating for water boarding, which involves neither. So, I can ignore your question until you provide an argument that shows that 'allowing suffering thereby leads to allowing severe suffering'. Since you have not done that, since you have not even thought of doing that, since you cannot do that, I can ignore your question. You can't put the onus on me to argue for your silly premises. Next...

MMMCUM member Greta writes:

How funny! After all the bragging and big-noting, I was hoping for a response that could live up to the hype. Instead all I get are insults, misrepresentations and distraction from the fact that he'd been owned. 

Yikes! You're celebrating a victory on what grounds--that I'm at home asleep? LMAO. Mine is the only argument on this thread. I have given a lengthy argument and then I have broken it down to its basic premises and conclusion. I even numbered the premises so mental eunuchs such as yourself could follow without getting too lost.

No logic or reason to work with. Zero argumentation. The most incompetent and toxic member of any forum I have encountered.

No logic!!! My argument is quite forceful. The premises support each other. The conclusion strongly follows from the premises. That's called logic. No argumentation!!! Oh my. What else are you doing to deny -- that we landed on the moon? LMAO. Any idiot can see that I've given an argument, twice. You're free to lie, er, say it's poor or weak, but you cannot deny that I've given an argument (twice). I know I'm the most toxic member you've encountered. That's because my commonsense ideas are toxic to your terrorist abetting policies. Your entire comment was carping and obfuscation. You deny facts which everyone can see. Do you work for CNN? Next...

MMMCUM president Vegetariantaxidermy writes:

You said something along the lines of 'we aren't talking about the Khmer Rouge', the implication being that good ol Amurricans would never do anything like what those wogs did'. Actually you are just as bad, and have done a lot worse (not least because of the fact that the US has set itself up as the moral standard-bearer of the planet). There was no strawman.

No, that wasn't the implication. That was the stupid inference you drew. I said from the outset that we're discussing CIA water boarding, the unique interrogation method created by the CIA post the 9/11 attacks. And the reason we're discussing only this method is because this is the method we're advocating should be re-implemented. We're not advocating for any other method, so what's the point -- if not obfuscation -- to talk about other methods? So, when you start talking about the Khmer Rouge, you are off-topic, dunce. Why do I have to spell out the most simple points to idiots? You are either a complete imbecile or you're intentionally wasting my time with questions that nobody is confused about.

I posted the UN definition because you obviously need it spelt out to you, and it's quite thorough. Your absurd assertion that the UN definition is somehow invalid because of an apparent (totally unrelated) bias against Israel is a logical fallacy, so it's rather pathetic the way you keep whining about 'strawmen'.

I didn't need the UN definition spelled out for me. I have always known its definition. And I didn't say the UN was unqualified because of its policies against Israel. Again, you can't seem to read. I said it is not a moral authority such that we are somehow compelled to accept its definition as correct. So, while you may abandon your reason when the UN trumpets a dictum, I do not. And a dictionary isn't a philosophical authority either. So, please, spare me your layman's understanding of philosophy and ethics. My definition is better. But, still, I obliged you guys and used the UN's definition, so why are you prattling on about my definition and my objections to the UN? Because you're carping.

And modern democracies are naturally going to be held to a higher moral standard than totalitarian theocracies.

Irrelevant drivel.

Why don't you get someone to waterboard you (I'm sure you will find plenty of takers) and then get back to us on how little you suffered.
Just keep telling us how brilliant you are. Say it often enough and we are sure to believe you eventually.

I've already conceded that I wouldn't want to be water boarded. That proves nothing. Relevancy Meter = Moron spoke about my not wanting to be water boarded. 

Oh, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you keep editing your OP.....

LOL...Ooh, someone went back and fixed a typo. Nefarious! I haven't changed my argument or any meaningful part. If I find typos, I like to go back and fix them. But, some idiot can come along and spook people by saying "It hasn't gone unnoticed that you keep editing your OP." LMAO. Comedy.

Well, since you dimlights have decided to gang up on me, you can't expect me to get to all your comments in one sitting. I've taken them on in chronological order. I'll try to continue later tonight but no promises. If I don't return, Greta can do her victory dance about how I have no come-backs. Bwahaha...still funny. Bye for now.

[Harbal]

It's the Black Knight. Did you bring your rusty pipe with you?

[fiveredapples]

It's the Black Knight. Did you bring your rusty pipe with you?

No, I left it inside your mother.

[Harbal]

No, I left it inside your mother.

Good answer.

Your insults have a middle Eastern flavour about them, are you an Arab?

[fiveredapples]

Your insults have a middle Eastern flavour about them, are you an Arab?

Your spelling has a British flavor about it. Are you a colonialist?

[Hobbes' Choice]

No, I left it inside your mother.

Good answer.

Your insults have a middle Eastern flavour about them, are you an Arab?

His posts have a shitiness about them because he is an arsehole.

[fiveredapples]

I have about 45 minutes before I call it a day today. Let me address some comments I have might missed. Obviously, I cannot address every comment, simply because I don't have that kind of time or energy, especially since many are irrelevant drivel and most are silly. But, still, I do enjoy the polemics, so let's see what I can respond to.

Water boarding is suffocation, the feeling of drowning, and that is torture. It appears to be one of the less grotesque and damaging forms of torture, but it is obviously torturous and, thus, torture.

You're equivocating on the word "suffocation" to make a dumb inference. Suffocation is the impediment of respiration. When you hold your breath for five seconds, that's suffocation. Obviously you're not going to die when you do that. And you aren't being tortured -- self torture -- when you do that. To think so is just dumb. So, just saying 'suffocation is torture' is blatantly stupid. You must qualify the kind of suffocation you mean. And CIA water boarding doesn't involve prolonged suffocation -- you CANNOT die from it. Your respiration is interrupted for less than 5 seconds per water dousing. So, obviously it's stupid to say that CIA water boarding is a serious kind of suffocation. You claim that the "feeling of drowning" is torture. LOL. No, really, that's laughably stupid. How is the FEELING of drowning torture? It's not even drowning, which cannot happen with CIA water boarding, as no water is entering your lungs. It's the DROWNING SENSATION. So the drowning sensation is torture how? What snowflake definition of torture are you using such that the FEELING of drowning is torture? You Give No Arguments. You are a failure at thought.

Opinions vary as to whether torture is morally justified, generally being a distillation of the ends vs means argument. I don't have much of an opinion on it given that awful, awful things are being done to people every day in this overpopulated and unstable world where most individual human lives are no longer considered valuable by the institutions that control society. It's not easy to weigh the various "awfuls" against each other. I can imagine scenarios where waterboarding could be justifiable, but it is unequivocally torture.

Ooh...it's "unequivocally torture." What a joke. You're just stating your opinions strongly. Here, I'll do it: CIA water boarding is without doubt, unequivocally, undeniably not torture. What a dumb, utterly contemptible method of debate you practice. You are unequivocally intellectually dishonest and inept. Go try your sophistry on your pussy cap wearing brethren. But I do philosophy. Charlatans like you are vermin in the field of honest intellectual debate.

[Londoner]

I accept that CIA water boarding causes discomfort. Let's stick with the UN definition, since you guys seem happy to do so and so am I. The clause is "severe pain or severe suffering", and if we're talking about suffering simpliciter, then I will concede that it causes suffering, which is meant to capture the mental suffering, as opposed to the 'pain', which is meant to capture the physical suffering.

Why stop at water boarding? Notice your question is a slippery slope question. One simple answer is that water boarding works, so there's no need to go beyond water boarding (QED). You're saying that somehow, in some world where logic doesn't apply, there's no necessary argument needed to go from permitting suffering to permitting severe suffering. But that seems to require an argument on YOUR PART, not mine, as I'm not advocating for severe pain or severe suffering. I'm advocating for water boarding, which involves neither. So, I can ignore your question until you provide an argument that shows that 'allowing suffering thereby leads to allowing severe suffering'. Since you have not done that, since you have not even thought of doing that, since you cannot do that, I can ignore your question. You can't put the onus on me to argue for your silly premises. Next...

We have already established that your notion of suffering differs from the legal one. There seems no point in discussing that further. Remember, you said you were presenting a moral argument.

If it is morally right to make people suffer at all, you would need to say why. Depending on that answer we could then argue whether any particular degree of suffering was justified or unjustified. I cannot judge whether your acceptance of waterboarding represents a 'slippery slope', until I know why you consider it to be moral.

For example, is it a purely utilitarian calculation? If it was, and if you were certain that you could save 100 innocent lives, why would it not be legitimate to kill 99 innocent people? If not, why not? Or, in order to save 100 lives, would it be legitimate to torture somebody, even though that individual might have had no information to give?

Or do you allocate a higher value to US citizens than others, such that it is legitimate to treat foreigners differently to Americans, in the same way as many consider animals as having lesser rights than humans? Or is there some other calculation? Similarly, is there an absolute rule for how much suffering you can inflict (nothing worse than waterboarding), or can permissible means vary according to ends? Again, if not, why not?

You seem reluctant to engage with such questions. I don't blame you! Since whatever rationale you select somebody is going to point out that it is going to force you into accepting some unpleasant consequences. But there is no avoiding it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I have about 45 minutes before I call it a day today..

run along now!

[fiveredapples]

We have already established that your notion of suffering differs from the legal one. There seems no point in discussing that further. Remember, you said you were presenting a moral argument.

No, we haven't established that at all. We've established that my notion of torture is different than the UN's notion, but as I have accepted the UN's definition, this is a moot point.

If it is morally right to make people suffer at all, you would need to say why.

There are millions of instances in which it's morally permissible to make people suffer. As you dolts have insisted that the tiniest of acts causes suffering, then since it's morally permissible, in many cases, to kill someone or stab someone in self-defense, then it's morally permissible (in some cases) to make people suffer. Nobody should have to point out the obvious like that, except idiots keep asking for the obvious to be explained to them.

Depending on that answer we could then argue whether any particular degree of suffering was justified or unjustified.

Obviously we are morally permitted to inflict various level of harm, pain, or suffering on someone in certain cases, so obviously the severity of our acts are not the issue. In other words, how much pain or suffering we inflict is not a point of contention -- unless you're a moron such as yourself. The point is...under which circumstances can we inflict this pain or suffering. And so now we've reached something most people have already understood. Except you have decided to carp. You're a giant waste of time.

For example, is it a purely utilitarian calculation?

Idiot. CIA water boarding is a preventative measure, as is self-defense. It's not a moral philosophy about how to treat our fellow law-abiding citizens. You're the biggest idiot of this group because you've mis-read a little philosophy and now you think you have ability.

If it was, and if you were certain that you could save 100 innocent lives, why would it not be legitimate to kill 99 innocent people? If not, why not? Or, in order to save 100 lives, would it be legitimate to torture somebody, even though that individual might have had no information to give?

LOL. Idiocy. The CIA water boarded three KNOWN TERRORISTS. That's it. That's the history we're dealing with. That's a 100% success rate of extracting valuable information from the three known terrorists we water boarded. In light of these FACTS, look at your idiotic question. You're talking about utilitarianism (a repugnant ethical theory) why? Because you've ventured off into irrelevant grand-standing.

Or do you allocate a higher value to US citizens than others, such that it is legitimate to treat foreigners differently to Americans, in the same way as many consider animals as having lesser rights than humans?

I said CIA water boarding is morally permissible, meaning the method they use, not that it must be done by the CIA. Only a moron would misunderstand what I wrote. We know among whom to count you, now.

Or is there some other calculation? Similarly, is there an absolute rule for how much suffering you can inflict (nothing worse than waterboarding), or can permissible means vary according to ends? Again, if not, why not?

Irrelevant. We are talking strictly of CIA water boarding. If you wish to go off the reservation, by all means, but don't expect me to follow.

You seem reluctant to engage with such questions. I don't blame you! Since whatever rationale you select somebody is going to point out that it is going to force you into accepting some unpleasant consequences. But there is no avoiding it.

Ha ha ha...is "Greta" your other account? I am one person trying to answer a boat load of questions from many people. So when I don't address some of them, or when I go to sleep, my opponents claim victories and make asinine inferences. Genius stuff. I'm reluctant to answer questions by philosophical tyros that miss the mark of this debate almost entirely. I must be selective, although I am fond of engaging irrelevant idiots sometimes, because I'm one person. No one can expect me to address every comment, especially since most of them are irrelevant or completely misguided (such as you are).

My argument is spelled out for everyone to see. I even put a basic version with numbered premises for all to hopefully understand. If you aren't attacking those premises, then you shouldn't expect me to address your comments. It's carping, it's a waste of time, and it only serves to squelch real debate. You are incapable of following a simple argument. But, I know, you fancy yourself steeped in philosophical thought. Sorry, buddy, but you've only proven you're incapable of following the simplest of arguments. But do tell us about other ethical theories you misunderstand. It'll impress the crowd.

[fiveredapples]

His posts have a shitiness about them because he is an arsehole.

And your posts have a dumbfuckery about them because....

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Typical anti-facts nonsense. You don't have to "think of a scenario", Einstein. There are three cases of CIA Water Boarding we're talking about, and all three produced valuable information, which was confirmed and acted upon.

Be specific. Whose lives did this 'valuable information' save (good luck with that one)? What was the information elicited? How many people have been tortured and no 'valuable information' was obtained? Had these people all had trials, where they were proven to be 'terrorists' (a strange word for a yank to use) before being 'harmlessly tickled'?
You have nothing but empty words and juvenile insults. A sad and bitter troll.

[Greta]

Ah, waking up and see what the toxic one has to spew today. Oh, what a surprise! More insults and weak logic!

FRA, your entire "argumentation" is based on false premises, namely, a redefinition of the words "torture" and "suffering".

For water boarding to be torture, it would have to satisfy the definition of torture, which includes the intent to harm. Now, 'harm' doesn't mean every kind of "pain" or discomfort, as my playing loud music might discomfort you and in some sense cause you "pain", but being subjected to my loud country music doesn't imply that I am torturing you.

That would be absurd to think, let alone try to defend. Now, if I play loud music long enough, maybe I can make you crazy to the point where it causes lasting psychological damage, maybe permanent damage, and so then you could reasonably say that you were tortured, provided of course that I restrained you this entire time such that you couldn't simply plug your ears or walk away from the noise. So, by 'harm' is meant some lasting effect -- like I cut off a body part, I used Chinese water torture to drive you insane, I sodomized you with a rusty pipe, etc. Water boarding has never been shown -- not by the Senate Committee, not by anyone -- to involve the intent to harm.

You simply discount PTSD as a reality and based your "argumentation" on the basis of this false premise.

But wait, you start being more "persuasive" - a pre-emptive ad hominem for anyone thinking of disagreeing:

But we're not mindless sheeple.

Then shouting ...

THERE IS NO HARM.

Ooh, now I'm intimidated. Oh please Mr FiveRedTestes, please don't insult me or shout at us any more. We'll agree to everything you say! You are such a low grade human

Wow. Amazing, right? Not one of the three terrorists captured and water boarded after the 9/11 attacks -- I'm talking about Khalid Sheik Muhammed and two others -- suffered any lasting injury; hence, no harm. So if none of them suffered harm, you can see why nobody has been able to argue that the CIA had an intent to harm them.

Then disregarding individual human differences based on reports on a tiny sample produced under the most politicised of circumstances. But nope, that report suits FiveRedApples, so let's just believe everything the CIA says about their methods of information extraction [sic].

If they did, they are very incompetent at their jobs.

Now the "no true Scotsman fallacy.

So, CIA water boarding not only involves no harm (which, again, must be a lasting effect) but it involves no intent to harm (at least none that you can reasonably infer from the evidence).

Again, blindly trusting the government's assessment of harm done by itself - you accept this because you barrack your cause rather than think it through. This is a parallel world where PTSD does not exist or does not constitute "harm". This is a world where we can inflict non traumatic torture - an oxymoron.

So, they equivocate on the word "harm" to muddle the issue. Being doused with water, as in the CIA water boarding, is extremely uncomfortable and maybe cause you some garden-variety harm (not the lasting harm we need), but you are not being drowned, your lungs are not filling up with water, there's no danger of you drowning, and you are not being harmed (in the way we required for this debate). This is why not one terrorist suffered any lasting effect. The CIA has ingeniously created a way to cause someone a lot of discomfort without causing any long-lasting harm or doing any long-term or permanent psychological damage. So, would you want to be water boarded? No, it's very uncomfortable. Would you suffer any harm if you did get water boarded? No. So, water boarding is not torture. Case closed. You cannot get around this argument, which is why opponents of water boarding, which are mostly Liberals but some Conservatives too, usually skip this annoying step and simply assume that water boarding is torture.

Okay, I think that's all I should say now. I could write a book on this topic, but who would read it, amirite?

More pre-emptive ad hominems. Insults and spruiking. Zzzzz.

Again, blithely ignoring over the PTSD issue. You can repeat yourself all you like but you fucked up right at the first step - waterboarding is clearly and obviously traumatic and there are many reports of PTSD symptoms in victims afterwards. Whether it is the CIA's "nice" way or any other, waterboarding is an attack on a prisoner designed to take advantage of fight-or-flight responses. It barely matters that those undergoing the torture are intellectually aware that they are not in physical danger; panic and the writhe response will ensue.

Inflicting trauma is exactly the point of torture; if it was not traumatic it would not get results. When comparing torture methods, waterboarding appears to be one of the more subtle and least physically damaging of them. That does not mean it's not torture. Your focusing on the physical to the extent of completely missing the mental aspect was a huge error, exacerbated by a terrible attitude.

[fiveredapples]

A quick drop-in to answer some questions. Note: I'm going to revise this post because it became clear to me that most of Greta's comments stemmed from her inability to read, so I'm going to shorten this for readers. Nothing in the original response matters to this debate, so for brevity's sake and maybe to tone down the vulgarity, I'll redact.

FRA, your entire "argumentation" is based on false premises, namely, a redefinition of the words "torture" and "suffering".

If you're too lazy to follow this debate, then why are you commenting? I've already agreed to use the UN's definition of torture, so my argument doesn't rest with my definition. And I haven't redefined suffering. I've simply noted that 'suffering' isn't sufficient, according to the UN's definition, but that you need 'severe suffering' and nobody has argued successfully that the three known terrorists experienced severe suffering. Keep up or shut up.

You simply discount PTSD as a reality and based your "argumentation" on the basis of this false premise.

Which of the three known terrorists that the CIA water boarded suffered or are suffering from PTSD? LMAO. What world do you live in? There have been no reports of any of them suffering from PTSD, so why do you bring it up? Obfuscation.

Greta's comments are based on alleged reports from different cases of water boarding -- not any of the three cases we're discussing in this debate -- so everything she has to say is irrelevant. She's arguing that PTSD is severe suffering, but she cannot link PTSD to any of the three known terrorists the CIA water boarded post the 9/11 attacks -- because she's confused about the scope of this debate. Essentially, she's a time waster.