Cia 'enhanced Interrogation' Techniques

[ardillacid]

[quote]Water-boarding: prisoner bound, with cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning

Cold cell: prisoner made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water

Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor

Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury[/quote]

From the BBC





Do you think any of these are permissible?

[CatherineM]

I can't say I like the ideas, but they are a far cry from what they did to my dad in WWII. I don't like the idea of torturing someone just to see if they know something. If you are dealing with a kidnapper or child molester, and you are trying to find a child before they die, I'd say yes. If we pick up someone that we have evidence that they are involved in a terrorist act that hasn't happened yet, maybe so too. Just for a fishing expedition, I don't think we should.

[txdinghysailor]

the water boarding thing isn't bad because it's not causing any harm to the prisoner. It's just mental anguish, which is what these guys deserve.

Cold cell is fine.

standing is definitely permissible. i don't think you're going to cause anyone long term physical ailments by making them stand up.

and the belly slap is absolutely permissible! I mean I do that to my buddies all the time!

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm somewhat leery, obviously, but most of all about the standing one.

Standing for prolonged periods of time... can't it potentially be dangerous, if done to excess?

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1795530' date='Mar 2 2009, 06:09 PM']From the BBC





Do you think any of these are permissible?[/quote]
No

Edited March 3, 2009 by MIkolbe

[cmotherofpirl]

If its not something you would want done to your mother, sister or child you don't don't touch them.

[HisChildForever]

The Jack Bauer in me says "yes."

[MIKolbe]

CCC:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1796244' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:13 PM']CCC:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.[/quote]

Hm, what does the rest of the text say? "Prisoners" as in prisoners of war, or actual inmates? (I assume prisoners of war though, within the context.)

I understand that even our enemies (like the most heinous of criminals) deserve to be treated humanely, but if known terrorist is captured, and there is beyond a reasonable doubt that this terrorist has information regarding an impending terrorist attack against our country that would take away three thousand innocent lives, and clearly this terrorist is well trained and will not budge at all to verbal demands, we are supposed to "sit back" and let the attack happen?

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796253' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:32 PM']I understand that even our enemies (like the most heinous of criminals) deserve to be treated humanely, but if known terrorist is captured, and there is beyond a reasonable doubt that this terrorist has information regarding an impending terrorist attack against our country that would take away three thousand innocent lives, and clearly this terrorist is well trained and will not budge at all to verbal demands, we are supposed to "sit back" and let the attack happen?[/quote]

No. However we cannot torture a person. One cannot preform an evil act in order to attain good. Doesn't matter what example you give you cannot torture someone. No evil act could be permitted to attain the greater good.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1795559' date='Mar 2 2009, 09:29 PM']I can't say I like the ideas, but they are a far cry from what they did to my dad in WWII. I don't like the idea of torturing someone just to see if they know something. If you are dealing with a kidnapper or child molester, and you are trying to find a child before they die, I'd say yes. If we pick up someone that we have evidence that they are involved in a terrorist act that hasn't happened yet, maybe so too. Just for a fishing expedition, I don't think we should.[/quote]

as always catherineM is the voice of reason.

i'm surprised hischild, etc, is supportive of those methods. i always thought she etc was adamentaly opposed to it all.

i'd argue if it's questionable whether it's torture, then in the less certain situations, go ahead and do it. eg, bin laden's driver is in captivity and we think he knows stuff but won't tell (real life example, really happened), go ahead and water board em. but don't do things that amount to torture.
save real torture for those cases where they admit it, or it's 99%ish sure and the gravity of the harm is high.
but then, i'm a proportionalist/consequentialist.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1796254' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:36 PM']No. However we cannot torture a person. One cannot preform an evil act in order to attain good. Doesn't matter what example you give you cannot torture someone. No evil act could be permitted to attain the greater good.[/quote]
Do you believe these methods to be under the definition of torture?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1796255' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:38 PM']i'm surprised hischild, etc, is supportive of those methods. i always thought she etc was adamentaly opposed to it all.[/quote]

Where the heck did you get this idea? I have actually never been involved in a discussion/debate on torture, although I have been involved in discussion/debate on the death penalty, which I am not opposed to.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1796257' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:39 PM']Do you believe these methods to be under the definition of torture?[/quote]


Yes, I do believe that these are torture. You are degrading human life. Treating the person as less than human.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796243' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:13 PM']The Jack Bauer in me says "yes."[/quote]
The Jack Bauer in me says the same thing, but the Church has overruled him.

[HisChildForever]

I could live with myself if I put a terrorist in a cold room and threw cold water on him in order to save thousands of lives; I could not live with myself if I had the means to save those lives but did nothing.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796253' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:32 AM']Hm, what does the rest of the text say? "Prisoners" as in prisoners of war, or actual inmates? (I assume prisoners of war though, within the context.)

I understand that even our enemies (like the most heinous of criminals) deserve to be treated humanely, but if known terrorist is captured, and there is beyond a reasonable doubt that this terrorist has information regarding an impending terrorist attack against our country that would take away three thousand innocent lives, and clearly this terrorist is well trained and will not budge at all to verbal demands, we are supposed to "sit back" and let the attack happen?[/quote]

who determines:

- whether a terrorist is 'known terrorist'?
- whether there is a reasonal doubt that the terrorist has intel?
- if he/she does, who determines whether it would stop an 'impending' attack?

The same people who would torture him/her? That's a little too convenient to me, and is ultimately a non sequitor..

The catechism lays it out plainly.. treat them humanely.

One can either try to find a 'line in the sand' to tip toe upto and CERTAINLY not cross, or you can live up to the simple plain speak of the catechism and treat people humanely.

And it is a false dichotomy to argue the "torture or do nothing" argument. Or are you really arguing those are our ONLY 2 choices?

[HisChildForever]

I can make it more personal.

Terrorists have kidnapped a group of innocent people and are holding them hostage in an unknown location. Your immediate family are part of this group. The terrorists are trying to make some distorted political statement - they are brutally torturing every single member of the group. To prove that they are not messing around, they allow one individual from each family to call a loved one on the outside (keeping the conversations short so the cell phone signal cannot be traced). You are on the phone with your [insert parent/sibling/spouse/child here] who is in hysterics.

But there is good news! The CIA happens to have a lead on a terrorist who has critical knowledge about the terrorist operation. They put together a team and catch the terrorist in question. You just so happen to be a CIA agent, a pivotal member of this mission (to save the innocents from brutal torture and inevitable death). You now have this terrorist in custody who is a known affiliate of those currently torturing the innocent group (remember, your family is included). The captured terrorist is not talking and is unresponsive to every single deal offered (this is the kind of terrorist who would commit suicide for the sake of his/her cause). This terrorist is your [b]only[/b] lead and your only hope of saving the innocents.

The question: Would you approve of the new CIA "enhanced interrogation" techniques?

If you firmly answer "no" please be able to offer an alternative.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1795530' date='Mar 2 2009, 09:09 PM']From the BBC





Do you think any of these are permissible?[/quote]
No, for two reasons:
[list=1]
[*]The US is better than that.
[*]From a purely practical perspective, torture is ineffective as a means of extracting useful intelligence.
[/list]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1796383' date='Mar 3 2009, 03:27 PM']No, for two reasons:
[list=1]
[*]The US is better than that.
[*]From a purely practical perspective, torture is ineffective as a means of extracting useful intelligence.
[/list][/quote]

they say that in real life, it's not been ineffective.
maybe it's ineffective sometimes, but that don't translate into always.