Interrogation Methods for Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf

[blike]

This guy was called "the "most lethal" ally of militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi".

 

Surely he knows some things that would be very useful in saving civilian lives. What would be the boundaries you would place on interrogation methods?

[-Demosthenes-]

What kind of methods might they use?

[blike]

I'm looking for what boundaries you would draw and your rationalization for them.

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm sure that extreme measures could be taken if they were needed to save lives. I don't know what kind of things they woul do though. Would they not give them food or water until they talk? Are we talking torture? He is an probable terrerist... but is is right? I think he gave up alot of his rights when he dicided to hurt people.

[Sayonara]

I'm sure that extreme measures could be taken if they were needed to save lives. I don't know what kind of things they woul do though. Would they not give them food or water until they talk? Are we talking torture? He is an probable terrerist... but is is right? I think he gave up alot of his rights when he dicided to hurt people.

Oh right, it's "okay" to torture terrorists.

[Tetrahedrite]

Oh right, it's "okay" to torture terrorists.

That seems to be the US policy. The country that is supposed to be the benchmark for human rights sees fit to break these rights in order to make sure that other countries don't abuse these very same human rights

[Sayonara]

I think the culture in the USA can be quite confusing for people in this regard. Most of the dramas and stories that really influence people usually have strong "the good guys are super moral and nice" themes, but when something bad has to be done it's "okay", because they're the good guys.

 

There are very few that actually force characters to live with the consequences, or face their own demons in a non-messianic fashion.

 

That probably contributes to a false sense of cultural identity.

[budullewraagh]

it's all perspective. if we torture people it's ok and a means for saving lives and all. if they chop someone's head off it's a crime against humanity

[Ophiolite]

I'm looking for what boundaries you would draw and your rationalization for them.

No torture. Nothing that I wouldn't object to happening to one of my adult children. I want to be absolutely certain I maintain the moral high ground and not descend to his level. Besides this akward phrase keeps looping through my head - "innocent till proven guilty".

[-Demosthenes-]

Oh right, it's "okay" to torture terrorists.

I tried very carefully not to say anthing but to pur forth information and ask a question.

[Macroscopic]

By Sayonara{Quote}Oh right, it's "okay" to torture terrorists.{/Quote}

 

Of course it is. They use those same methods, so what's the problem?

[Ophiolite]

Who determines they are terrorists? Judge/Jury/Executioner is another phrase that springs to mind.

[ecoli]

I have a problem with people who think psychological torture is not as bad as physical torture. This should not be used as a basis for determining what kind of torture is permissable...as I don't believe it's true.

[Tetrahedrite]

By Sayonara{Quote}Oh right' date=' it's "okay" to torture terrorists.{/Quote}

 

Of course it is. They use those same methods, so what's the problem?[/quote']

Obviously you agree with Dubya's "guilty until proven innocent" mentality!

[Macroscopic]

Obviously you agree with Dubya's "guilty until proven innocent" mentality!

I meant that it should be ok after the trial. But if he is proven guilty, then it should be OK to use extreme interrogation. This is a murderer, and lives could be saved by interrogating him, so you're saying that some people's lives aren't as important as this guy's comfort?

[budullewraagh]

Of course it is. They use those same methods, so what's the problem?

the problem is that the more we hurt him the more pissed off his buddies get. plus, we have his blood all over our hands

[Macroscopic]

the problem is that the more we hurt him the more pissed off his buddies get. plus, we have his blood all over our hands

True, but the more we hurt him, the more likely we are to catch his buddies. We get his blood on our hands; maybe that'll show terrorists that we'll actually do something, and that we really are out to get them.

[budullewraagh]

no, not really. if we hurt him more he may just fall over and die. it isnt humane. if we get his blood on our hands it will only piss them off more.

 

example of what pissing people off does:

-man walks down the street in baghdad, gets caught in crossfire, gets shot. wife and children pissed off. children grow up to hate america

[Sayonara]

True, but the more we hurt him, the more likely we are to catch his buddies. We get his blood on our hands; maybe that'll show terrorists that we'll actually do something, and that we really are out to get them.

See, the funny thing here is that you automatically place his life and/or suffering below that of other people.

This is because you've been told he's a terrorist, and in the current cultural climate that conveniently relieves you of all moral accountability. That's not really a position from which you can actually make ethically sound decisions.

[atinymonkey]

True, but the more we hurt him, the more likely we are to catch his buddies. We get his blood on our hands; maybe that'll show terrorists that we'll actually do something, and that we really are out to get them.

 

 

Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

[Macroscopic]

Origanally posted by Sayonara3

See, the funny thing here is that you automatically place his life and/or suffering below that of other people.

I know that sounds a little messed up, but he is a murderer, and he doesn't care about other people life, and/or suffering. We should use whatever methods neccasary. His life and suffering SHOULD be placed below others.

Origanally posted by -Demosthenes-

I think he gave up alot of his rights when he dicided to hurt people.

I agree with that. We can execute a criminal based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but when someone starts talking about torturing terrorists, everyone starts complaining about human rights. You are all trying to make him sound like a victim, but he's not. We should use whatever methods are neccasary. It does sound cruel, evil, anti-human rights, whatever you want to call it, but should be used with the same justification as going to war: Sometimes to do good, you must do bad first. That's just the way it is. That's what we use to justify it on a large-scale, why sould it be any different small-scale?

[syntax252]

I meant that it should be ok after the trial. But if he is proven guilty, then it should be OK to use extreme interrogation. This is a murderer, and lives could be saved by interrogating him, so you're saying that some people's lives aren't as important as this guy's comfort?

 

But if the trial takes 2 years to get started becuase the defense is not ready, and then it drags out for another year during the trial, how relevant would whatever he knows be?

[Sayonara]

Origanally posted by Sayonara3 I know that sounds a little messed up, but he is a murderer, and he doesn't care about other people life, and/or suffering. We should use whatever methods neccasary. His life and suffering SHOULD be placed below others.

Are you going to back up that "should" with some reasoning?

 

 

I agree with that. We can execute a criminal based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but when someone starts talking about torturing terrorists, everyone starts complaining about human rights. You are all trying to make him sound like a victim, but he's not.

No, we're trying to make him sound like a human being. He only becomes a victim when you start torturing him. Come on, it's not difficult to understand.

 

Personally I see your legal ability to execute people based on circumstantial evidence to be something else that is ****ed up, rather than the all-covering moral precedence for justifying torture that you paint it as.

 

 

We should use whatever methods are neccasary. It does sound cruel, evil, anti-human rights, whatever you want to call it, but should be used with the same justification as going to war: Sometimes to do good, you must do bad first. That's just the way it is. That's what we use to justify it on a large-scale, why sould it be any different small-scale?

There's that "should" again.

[TimeTraveler]

A human being is a human being, plain and simple. Torture, and cruel forms of interragation are inhumane, plain and simple. Yes a terrorist is a murderer, but do you really think the solution to the problem is stooping to their level?

 

America is really a compassionate and caring country, most Americans really do want to make the world a better place. But America has also recently suffered a great blow from 9/11. Right now it seems to me that most of my countrymen feel that revenge and payback, and the "we need to take them out before they hurt more people" mentality is the right thing. I must admit as an American, after being hit in such a manner, thinking about the children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends and family to many people on board those planes, or in those buildings, makes me very angry that someone could do such things and think it is okay.

 

Its sick, but really can you say that what we are doing to the people in Iraq isn't? How many innocent civilians have been killed by off-target bombs, or stray bullets. or whatever? These are also someones children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends or family members. Is it logical to think that we will ever win a war on terrorism in this fashion? How could it be? We are only breeding more hatred against the US, and the sad thing is, we are breeding it in our own country as well. Many Americans are disgusted by our countries actions.

 

Yes Saddam needed to be taken out of power, but look at what we have done to the country... over what 52 people? Don't we have snipers in the American military anymore?

 

Simple fact, America has killed more innocent civilians in the last 3 years than all the terrorist groups combined. How can you justify that as working for the greater good?

 

*edit*

 

Also I wanted to add, we say these people are terrorists, and yes many of them are. But how many of these people that have joined these groups are really terrorists? We have made them terrorists.

 

Picture this: You live in a country that is not wealthy and does not have a strong army. Your leader is an asshole and kills innocent people, most of your country hates him but there is not much anyone can do because he does control and rule the country. You are a small time farmer or merchant or something of that nature, you work very hard everyday to keep food on the table and a roof over the head of your family. Your family consists of you and your wife, your 3 teenage sons and your younger daughter. Your family is very close and works together to help one another and help the family in anyway they can to keep the unit strong. Now picture a superpower decides they want to take out your leader and 'help' your country. You would be unsure about this because a) yes you do want the leader removed, but b) you are worried about any war in your country and the safety of your family.

 

A few months down the road while making a trip to town for supplies your wife and daughter get killed by stray bullets or an off-target bomb. In reaction your sons take up arms and join a terrorist group to fight against the people who killed their mother and sister. Soon after they all get killed in a raid by the superpower against terrorists. Now your whole family has been killed, how much would you like that superpower?

[blike]

I would have to agree with using rough interrogation methods, but I would not condone things such as mutilation. I would probably suppport using sleep deprivation, drugs, verbal tactics, and perhaps food deprivation.

 

I don't think the moral decision is as difficult as many of you make it seem. Perhaps because the idea seems so abstract in the media, it is easy to construct yourself a moral platform on which to glare down at others who feel that it is quite justified to use whatever means necessary.

 

I would argue that most of you would actually make the decision to torture someone if it was a personal situation. Three men break into your house and kidnap your little girl. You catch one of the men, and the other two get away with your child. I doubt that any of parent would be "respecting his human rights".

 

See, the funny thing here is that you automatically place his life and/or suffering below that of other people.

This is because you've been told he's a terrorist, and in the current cultural climate that conveniently relieves you of all moral accountability. That's not really a position from which you can actually make ethically sound decisions.

Indeed. I, for one, will be the first to admit that I do not value his life as much as another life. I do place his suffering well below that of other people. I find this morally justifiable. Anyone who agrees with any sort of punishment inherently finds the suffering of the guilty justifiable.

 

Torture, and cruel forms of interragation are inhumane, plain and simple. Yes a terrorist is a murderer, but do you really think the solution to the problem is stooping to their level?

It's a solution which has worked very efficiently in the past.