Cia 'enhanced Interrogation' Techniques

[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.

[jeffpugh]

Wasn't there already three threads on this?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796259' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:41 PM']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.[/quote]

actually, now that i think about it, it was a girl who used to post here, but doesn't any more.
she had like an ann frank type icon.
anyways, not you, my bad.

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's been more than three threads on this, for sure

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1796445' date='Mar 3 2009, 03:19 PM']actually, now that i think about it, it was a girl who used to post here, but doesn't any more.
she had like an ann frank type icon.
anyways, not you, my bad.[/quote]

I look like Anne Frank?

(Still waiting for someone to reply to my scenario.)

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796332' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:01 PM']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.[/quote]

SOMEONE has been watching ALOT of 24. LOL

If you are asking me if I would or should do evil (or assent for evil to be done) so that good may come from it.

I firmly answer no.

My alternative:

1) Interrogate
2) Treat people humanely (all human life is sacred)
3) Trust in God

Again, you seem to make a case that UNLESS one tortures someone, there is NO OTHER WAY to gain intel. I just see that as a false dichotomy. Interrogators in WW2 did numerous, non-torturous things to gain intel...even something as inoccuous (sp) as playing chess. (i can find that article if you like) Some would argue, and argue strongly, that better intel was gained in WW2 than currently; and that torture can, and does, yield alot of false intel.

And again, why "see how close we can come to sin without committing it'? Is that really the relationship God wants with us?

Let me ask you something now.

Let's say you are married. And there is an earthquake that causes half the US to be split in 2. The earthquake is so massive it kills all of the human race except you, your husband, one other man, and one other woman. On one side of the spilt US is you and the other man. On the other side is your husband and the other woman. Hypothetically, you can NEVER see or be with him ever again. Technology is wiped out, transportation is wiped out, and there are shark invested waters, where, if you were to try to swim to him, or he to you, you would be eaten alive and die instantaneously.

Would you commit adultery to perpetuate the human race?

Both my scenario and yours are perposterous (sp), and only seek to find out how close one would come to evil. Or if one would assent to evil only under DIRE circumstances. Both questions are a farce and intellectually dishonest from the start.

and a follow up question...

Would you torture someone to save MILLIONS, nay nay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of lives, if it left your soul, AND the souls of the torturers and those authorizing/advocating torture, to be cast into eternal Hell?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796332' date='Mar 3 2009, 03:01 PM']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.[/quote]
What I have read and heard from intelligence professionals is the torture doesn't work, period. What *does* work is playing mental chess with prisoners, by simply talking with them, asking them "innocent" questions, asking them the same thing different ways multiple times to figure out whether they're telling the truth or not.

The bottom line is, we have to be smart, not "tough."

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1796501' date='Mar 3 2009, 03:55 PM']SOMEONE has been watching ALOT of 24. LOL[/quote]

I just finished watching last night's first episode...the second one I will watch later, no spoiling please!

[quote]If you are asking me if I would or should do evil (or assent for evil to be done) so that good may come from it.

I firmly answer no.

My alternative:

1) Interrogate
2) Treat people humanely (all human life is sacred)
3) Trust in God[/quote]

That all seems well and good, but after hearing your spouse or child screaming bloody murder on the phone while some horrendous criminal is cutting into them? I would HAVE to act.

[quote]Again, you seem to make a case that UNLESS one tortures someone, there is NO OTHER WAY to gain intel. I just see that as a false dichotomy. Interrogators in WW2 did numerous, non-torturous things to gain intel...even something as inoccuous (sp) as playing chess. (i can find that article if you like) Some would argue, and argue strongly, that better intel was gained in WW2 than currently; and that torture can, and does, yield alot of false intel.[/quote]

I really think it would depend on the prisoner of war. Can you really sit in front of a terrorist and expect for them to comply to your interrogation? Would the men who hijacked our planes and brought the World Trade Center down be willing to hand over the names and locations of their comrades?

[quote]And again, why "see how close we can come to sin without committing it'? Is that really the relationship God wants with us?[/quote]

You are right, it is not the relationship God wants with us. I can submit to the Church on this but I will do so grudgingly because in my personal opinion (which is clearly wrong according to God) the argument against certain forms of torture is illogical to me when presented with potential situations.

[quote]Let me ask you something now.

Let's say you are married. And there is an earthquake that causes half the US to be split in 2. The earthquake is so massive it kills all of the human race except you, your husband, one other man, and one other woman. On one side of the spilt US is you and the other man. On the other side is your husband and the other woman. Hypothetically, you can NEVER see or be with him ever again. Technology is wiped out, transportation is wiped out, and there are shark invested waters, where, if you were to try to swim to him, or he to you, you would be eaten alive and die instantaneously.

Would you commit adultery to perpetuate the human race?[/quote]

That is a very good question, my immediate answer would be "yes." I am not sleeping with this man because I am being selfish, nor am I sleeping with him because I am being overtaken by lust - I am sleeping with him to procreate, to continue the human race. Adultery is always wrong, I know that. But let us take another example - murder. Is murder always wrong? Yes. Is murder always a sin? No (think self-defense). While there is absolutely no excuse to cheat on your spouse, if an [u]extreme[/u] situation like the one you gave occurred, would that adultery be considered a sin? It would be wrong (it is inherently wrong) but would it be a sin?

*Edit - Just note that I am not married nor in a relationship so obviously it is even more difficult to picture this scenario.

[quote]Would you torture someone to save MILLIONS, nay nay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of lives, if it left your soul, AND the souls of the torturers and those authorizing/advocating torture, to be cast into eternal Hell?[/quote]

If I was exhausted of all options (the individual I was interrogating would not budge at all), and in my heart I had the best intentions (wanting desperately to save hundreds of millions of lives) and was in agony over the internal conflict, and yet used one of the techniques described in the OP, would I really be damned to Hell?

Edited March 3, 2009 by HisChildForever

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796530' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:17 PM']I just finished watching last night's first episode...the second one I will watch later, no spoiling please! [/quote]

ok, no spoilers from me!!!


[quote]That all seems well and good, but after hearing your spouse or child screaming bloody murder on the phone while some horrendous criminal is cutting into them? I would HAVE to act.[/quote]
I guess I see prayer as action, so I would act.

[quote]I really think it would depend on the prisoner of war. Can you really sit in front of a terrorist and expect for them to comply to your interrogation? Would the men who hijacked our planes and brought the World Trade Center down be willing to hand over the names and locations of their comrades?[/quote]
no it doesn't, a person is a person.
yes, you can. and they do.
I don't know. You think they would hand us correct intel after we chopped off a finger, or threatened to crush the testicals of their son held offsite if they did not comply? (the past administration had no problem with the latter, fyi)

[quote]You are right, it is not the relationship God wants with us. I can submit to the Church on this but I will do so grudgingly because in my personal opinion (which is clearly wrong according to God) the argument against certain forms of torture is illogical to me when presented with potential situations.[/quote]
that's just the devil ($*#*$ with you. </pulp fiction>


[quote]That is a very good question, my immediate answer would be "yes." I am not sleeping with this man because I am being selfish, nor am I sleeping with him because I am being overtaken by lust - I am sleeping with him to procreate, to continue the human race. Adultery is always wrong, I know that. But let us take another example - murder. Is murder always wrong? Yes. Is murder always a sin? No (think self-defense). While there is absolutely no excuse to cheat on your spouse, if an [u]extreme[/u] situation like the one you gave occurred, would that adultery be considered a sin? It would be wrong (it is inherently wrong) but would it be a sin?[/quote]
You are right "there is absolutely no excuse to cheat on your spouse". You cannot say that, then make exceptions for 'extreme situations'.. well you can.. but it really doesn't follow if you do.

[quote]If I was exhausted of all options (the individual I was interrogating would not budge at all), and in my heart I had the best intentions (wanting desperately to save hundreds of millions of lives) and was in agony over the internal conflict, and yet used one of the techniques described in the OP, would I really be damned to Hell?[/quote]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is what we do with our intentions that is the kicker.

I appreciate your honesty, though I manifestly disagree, and have enjoyed our repartee.

One of the nicer moments in the Debate Table.

Pax

Jason

[HisChildForever]

Alright I just came up with a crazy scenario.

There was a thread a while back about self-defense: a crook barges into your house brandishing a weapon. I was pretty shocked with the rather graphic responses to this scenario (don't quote me but I'm pretty sure someone said they'd whip out their shotgun and blast the crook). A lot of posters brought up their need to protect their family. Now even though the crook was brandishing a weapon, that does NOT mean the crook had every single intention of using it, so are you justified in killing the crook and claiming self-defense?

Take a look at this scenario in comparison: you have a terrorist in the interrogation room. You are not completely certain that the terrorist has the information you need (just like you are not completely certain if the crook is really going to cause physical harm - maybe death - to you and your family). The very city [b]you[/b] and [b]your family is in[/b] is being threatened by the group the terrorist is associated with. Therefore if you do not get your information you and your family will die (as well as everyone else in the city, and perhaps around it). Isn't torturing the terrorist (again using the examples provided in the OP) an act of self-defense?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1796549' date='Mar 3 2009, 04:35 PM']The road to hell is paved with good intentions.[/quote]

Ironically that's a lyric in a Madonna song.