[1457389]

>He'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions.

Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

That's not a moral position, that's one branch of the conditional:

> if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information

He's not arguing that torture is wrong, he's arguing that torture doesn't work.

[1457389]

No he stated his moral position (that torture is wrong) first, and then at the end of his answer appended "and of course it is ineffective, but that is another story".

Maybe listen/read to his full response first?

[BinaryIdiot]

The problem here is, what if studies showed torture really did work? Would he have the same, up front moral position? I think that's what parent was trying to allude to. Not whether he is morally opposed to it right now but if he's more of a "if it works I'll use it no matter what" type of person.

But that just calls into question a person's character and it's going to be impossible to dig down and find a satisfying answer for everyone. So I'm not sure how fruitful this is.

[arglebarnacle]

>...if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information

Right, he wouldn't use it because he doesn't believe it's effective. The GP is suggesting that if it were effective and legal, do you really believe he would refrain from doing it on moral grounds? It's the prerogative of the FBI to pursue cases using essentially all effective legal means, and it's no surprise to hear they are lobbying for more tools to become legal.

[1457389]

No. Like I said, he literally stated word for word that torture is both morally wrong in his eyes and ineffective, not to mention illegal.

Paraphrasing here but I think his definition was along the lines of "anything that purposefully causes physical harm or injury to a person", and when asked whether bad prison food counts, he said that in his eyes for his team that is not something he would condone. This was a pretty straightforward response; the man at least talks the good talk on torture.

[Programmatic]

Not to take away from his talking the good talk, but I don't think that his moral position is very meaningful given that it is demonstrably ineffective. If it was demonstrably effective and he said it was immoral, those words would carry much more weight. But he has little to lose by saying that it's morally wrong when it doesn't work. The illegality is also moot when discussing legalization.

[rhizome]

Sure, but if the populace and the political climate demanded torture from the FBI and he refused, he would be fired and replaced with someone not so principled in their opposition.

[1457389]

Yeah, he seems like a great example of someone who bows to the populace and political climate based on his track record...

[rhizome]

Who, the President, who controls his employment?