View Single Post

Re: Torture vs. Interrogation
Old 05-21-2009, 01:15 PM   #8
Professor S
Devourer of Worlds
 
Professor S's Avatar
 
Professor S is offline
Location: Mount Penn, PA
Now Playing: Team Fortress 2, all day everyday
Posts: 6,608
Default Re: Torture vs. Interrogation

From what I understood from the memos was that there was an escalation of interrogation tactics. They didn't simply start out with waterboarding, but instead there were opinions asked for and received each time a enhanced technique was suggested. I did not read the memos word for word, so I may be incorrect in my extrapolation, though.

To say that there was not a escalation of tecniques used, does not follow the evidence in the memos as I understand them, and also makes the supposition that the CIA and other interrogator's aim was to be sadistic, and not to gain information through the simplest means posible (those means that did not require legal opinion) and then escalate the means depending on the results of previous techniques.

Also, we have to recognize that waterboarding was done to three people, who were all of a high level within the enemy organization, which increase the chances that they had sensitive informaation that they refused to share. If it was the CIA's normal methods, wouldn't far more detainees have been waterboarded?

Myself, I'm curious to see if and when the memos and evidence regarding the results of the interrogations are released, and what they say. I am conflicted over waterboarding as while it is without a doubt an extraordinarily unpleasant experience, it does not cause pain or mutilate. Also, the detainees were told ahead of time that they would not die as a resut. So to me when you say waterboarding is torture, its lumping it into the realm of castration, bone breaking, pulling out fingernails, etc. I think that diminishes the word. Is it legal or moral? That's another issue.

Personally, if the documents regarding waterboarding show it to be an affective means of extracting information (all evidence to this point for and against the technique has been completely anecdotal), I would still be tolerant of it's use in extreme situations, but not as a normal part of interrogating. If it proves to be ineffective (meaning in full transparency there is no evicence it supplied crucial intel) I see no reason the ever do it again.
__________________

Last edited by Professor S : 05-21-2009 at 01:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote