Torture is in the news quite a bit lately.
Here is one article written by a Retired Marine (http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Torture_in_Interrogation.php) and another from the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?ref=opinion).
Can "water-boarding," or other extreme/ traditional methods of interrogation be effective if used correctly or do they simply elicit stop-the-pain responses?
The real issues here, in my mind anyway, are: 1. Defining torture, 2. Do the ends give you what you are looking for and 3. Does the end justify the means?
At what point does physically or verbally communicating with someone become torture? I can recall numerous professors who "tortured" their students with hour after hour of grueling powerpoint slides. I can also recall Drill Instructors "training" me with hundreds of push-ups and 8-count body-builders. Where is the line?
In both of those cases, I think the end justified the means. I learned the lessons they were trying to teach me and am a better man because of it... but their lessons were intended for a very, very small audience. They were influencing me, a classroom, or a platoon of Marines, at most.
Information gleaned from a solid interrogation is often used to protect thousands if not millions of American lives. That said, effective intelligence impossible to quantify. You never know how many lives were saved because a "9/11" was averted by good intelligence. We don't know what our intelligence has prevented or how much good was done because of "water-boarding" or other traditional methods.
We simply cannot see the ends the means have brought about and therefore cannot tell whether the ends justify the means.
All that said, I am against inhumane treatment of all sorts against all non-combatants; however, I am also all for doing what needs to be done to protect non-combatants as well.
Any thoughts?
Semper Fi,
m
Here is one article written by a Retired Marine (http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Torture_in_Interrogation.php) and another from the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?ref=opinion).
Can "water-boarding," or other extreme/ traditional methods of interrogation be effective if used correctly or do they simply elicit stop-the-pain responses?
The real issues here, in my mind anyway, are: 1. Defining torture, 2. Do the ends give you what you are looking for and 3. Does the end justify the means?
At what point does physically or verbally communicating with someone become torture? I can recall numerous professors who "tortured" their students with hour after hour of grueling powerpoint slides. I can also recall Drill Instructors "training" me with hundreds of push-ups and 8-count body-builders. Where is the line?
In both of those cases, I think the end justified the means. I learned the lessons they were trying to teach me and am a better man because of it... but their lessons were intended for a very, very small audience. They were influencing me, a classroom, or a platoon of Marines, at most.
Information gleaned from a solid interrogation is often used to protect thousands if not millions of American lives. That said, effective intelligence impossible to quantify. You never know how many lives were saved because a "9/11" was averted by good intelligence. We don't know what our intelligence has prevented or how much good was done because of "water-boarding" or other traditional methods.
We simply cannot see the ends the means have brought about and therefore cannot tell whether the ends justify the means.
All that said, I am against inhumane treatment of all sorts against all non-combatants; however, I am also all for doing what needs to be done to protect non-combatants as well.
Any thoughts?
Semper Fi,
m
