Interrogation Methods for Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf

[TimeTraveler]

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

 

Well, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but also it depends if we are talking about a solution to us winning or a solution to us making the world a better place overall. I would tend to agree with the former, and disagree with the latter.

[blike]

Just to point out that I'm not condoning it by any means, I was just responding to the argument that it hasn't worked before.

[blike]

One more thing to add: this is assuming it will save lives. This assumption can't always be made, etc.

[Ophiolite]

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' date=' and the other two get away with your child. I doubt that any of parent would be "respecting his human rights".[/quote']

Blike, this type situation is one that I have thought on long and hard over decades. I always arrive at the same conclusion: I would use any method available to recover my daughter safely, including torture and mutilation. Once she was recovered I would expect to be prosecuted for this. I would not contest it. Society has to be protected from thugs and from those who take the law into their own hands. This is even more true of governnments than of individuals.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by: Blike

I would probably suppport using sleep deprivation, drugs, verbal tactics, and perhaps food deprivation.

These are the kind of things I meant, I should have specified.

Originally posted by: Blike

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 agree with this, and it seems like a lot of people do that.

Originally posted by: Time Traveler

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?

It is sad that this happens, but it does. Compare the suffering that these types of families go through, to the suffering of the nation as a whole. If we didn't take action against the terrorists, more of these types of families would be created than if we didn't. The deaths caused by us are accidental, but the ones from the terrorists aren't. And we will be there for a limited time, but the terrorists are there killing people until we stop someone. That kind of pain was there before we came, and would've continued if we hadn't come. This had to happen a few times, or it would have continued, and there would have been more suffering. It was for the greater good.

[TimeTraveler]

If we didn't take action against the terrorists, more of these types of families would be created than if we didn't.

 

Can you back this up? I highly doubt this is even remotely close to true.

 

The deaths caused by us are accidental,

 

Oops, we accidently killed 100,000 innocent civilians, sorry about that.

 

And we will be there for a limited time, but the terrorists are there killing people until we stop someone.

 

And after that limited time there will be more terrorists in the world than before we went there. (Speculation, I cannot back that up)

 

That kind of pain was there before we came, and would've continued if we hadn't come.

 

Yes, I agree 100%. However you fail to mention how much more of that pain we are causing.

 

It was for the greater good.

 

I used to think that too. I slept alot better back then, sure is true when they say ignorance is bliss.

[blike]

Blike, this type situation is one that I have thought on long and hard over decades. I always arrive at the same conclusion: I would use any method available to recover my daughter safely, including torture and mutilation. Once she was recovered I would expect to be prosecuted for this. I would not contest it.

Good post, but would you really not contest it? On moral grounds or from a sociological point of view (i.e. those who take the law into their own hands must be punished). If a jury of your peers found that you had acted according to the law, would you allow yourself to go free?

[Macroscopic]

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

 

Yes. It is very simple. He is a mass murderer . His potential victims are not, they are innocent people who just want to live. I don't see why his life is being placed above others:confused: , which is what is happening if we don't use whatever methods are needed to get him to talk.

[Sayonara]

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.

Then we are at polar extremes, for I find it reprehensible. What I find to be out of place here is that you are the one (iirc) with the more religiously-founded moral structure.

 

 

Anyone who agrees with any sort of punishment inherently finds the suffering of the guilty justifiable.

Firstly, this is simply not true. There is a difference between punishment and torture, and you know that.

 

Secondly, you are assigning the label "guilty" under the presumption that someone your people have already labeled a "terrorist" is A Deeply Evil Person™. As long as you can stick enough labels on somebody, they obviously deserve whatever we can dish out, huh?

In the case of Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf, you might not find it difficult to argue the toss here, so let's not forget that he is merely accused of bombings so far, and those accusations come from a hostile occupying force and a new regime that is anxious to sweep away all links to the old, including insurgents.

It's a little premature to be talking of punishments, never mind the limits of interrogation an torture. You have already as much as admitted that you view this person as being inferior in terms of basic 'allowable' rights by pre-judging him without seeing evidence; which in your own society you would see as an abhorrent abuse.

 

Thirdly, there will always be another way to get the required information, which was conveniently not mentioned in your scenario.

 

 

I realise the following scenario is a flight of fancy, but go with me on this:

 

Imagine old Dubya went a bit crazy and the USA became a threat to international stability. Canada organise an occupying force and invade the States, deposing Bush's government. It's highly likely that all those nut-job militia types would start blowing anything Canadian-looking (and, let's face it, anything else that looks like fun that hasn't caught fire yet) with their bizarre arsenals and home made pipe bombs.

 

I wonder where you'd draw the lines on them being interrogated?

[Sayonara]

Yes. It is very simple. He is a mass murderer . His potential victims are not, they are innocent people who just want to live.

Accused != sentenced. Also, you are speaking from the perspective of a hostile occupying force. Nice one.

 

 

I don't see why his life is being placed above others:confused: , which is what is happening if we don't use whatever methods are needed to get him to talk.

No, it's being placed at the same level as all other life. You know, that most sacred and irreplacable of qualities we all share, the one you are purporting to value?

 

If you inherently assign someone's life at a lower value than that of any other, you are no better than a terrorist.

[Sayonara]

Also, I'd like to point out that "not torturing someone" does not actually require that you value their life per se, so let's drop the straw man.

[Guest Beaten Down]

I agree with Macroscopic I mean common, I have a degree in law and he should be...well not exactly tortured but interrigated.After we get what we want, we can execute him.One more thing....his "buddies" will come and then most-likely caught.AHA!!!American knowledge.

[Phi for All]

I would use any method available to recover my daughter safely, including torture and mutilation. Once she was recovered I would expect to be prosecuted for this. I would not contest it. Society has to be protected from thugs and[/b'] from those who take the law into their own hands. This is even more true of governnments than of individuals.

This is the ONLY morally defensible stance to take when one succumbs to the need for torture, imo. It acknowledges both the desire for justice and the need for responsibility for one's actions. It is too easy to justify criminal action against those we've labeled as criminals.

 

As Ophiolite has demonstrated here, the moral high ground is the best place from which to defend oneself.

[TimeTraveler]

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".

 

Your absolutly right, I would not respect his human rights.

 

But lets back up here. We are in their country, killing their people, in his position would you not do what you could to defend your country and your people?

[john5746]

Blike, this type situation is one that I have thought on long and hard over decades. I always arrive at the same conclusion: I would use any method available to recover my daughter safely, including torture and mutilation. Once she was recovered I would expect to be prosecuted for this. I would not contest it. Society has to be protected from thugs and[/b'] from those who take the law into their own hands. This is even more true of governnments than of individuals.

 

This is what the US does now. We bomb the enemy into the Stone Age, then we rebuild them.

 

Blike brought up most of the points I was thinking. I too favor some torture, where the line crosses is a fuzzy one. I would do anything to save my family, but a government can't be run like a vigilante.

[Sayonara]

I agree with Macroscopic I mean common, I have a degree in law and he should be...well not exactly tortured but interrigated.After we get what we want, we can execute him.One more thing....his "buddies" will come and then most-likely caught.AHA!!!American knowledge.

You have added nothing to this discussion. Well done.

[Ophiolite]

Good post, but would you really not contest it? On moral grounds or from a sociological point of view (i.e. those who take the law into their own hands must be punished). If a jury of your peers found that you had acted according to the law, would you allow yourself to go free?

I would want to not contest it from both standpoints. Whether I had the moral fortitude to take that route I don't know. If a jury found me not guilty I would be physically free, but I would still carry the knowledge of what I had done. That is a price I would have been aware of when I made the original decision to torture the individual for information. My underlying theme is that we are responsible for our actions (and inactions) and should not hide behind ends justify means type arguments.

[blike]

Then we are at polar extremes, for I find it reprehensible. What I find to be out of place here is that you are the one (iirc) with the more religiously-founded moral structure.

I know I came off as a bit barbaric there, so I want to expand a little bit. In theory it is quite reprehensible, but I believe if we are honest with ourselves, most people will find that they do not hold criminals in the same regard as they hold their elderly neighbor who brings over pies. Some do not regard the criminals right to freedom as important as their own. For others, the criminals right to life is not as important as their own. Still others do not value the criminals right to vote, or right to persue happiness. If one does enough introspection they will find some aspect of a criminals life which they do not value as much as their own. From this, I do not think it is a giant leap to the notion that people value their own lives or the lives of other 'noncriminals' as much as their own. If someone was forced to chose between the life of their friendly neighbor and the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, I do not believe it would be a tough moral decision regarding who to chose. To actually conclude your decision may be tough for some, because it means the end of human life. However, I strongly believe it is human nature to place value on others based on their actions. For some, this may be a conscious decision. For others, it may be an unconscious decision or a decision which is kept personal. This decision is not made with the blind eye of justice, and I'm not purporting that it is.

 

Firstly, this is simply not true. There is a difference between punishment and torture, and you know that.

Indeed, which is why I chose the word "suffering". Do criminals not suffer in prison? They may suffer physically, spiritually (in the case of the religious), psychologically, or all of the above. The result is the same: people suffer as the result of punishment.

 

Secondly, you are assigning the label "guilty" under the presumption that someone your people have already labeled a "terrorist" is A Deeply Evil Person™.

I was using 'guilty' in a general context, but as to the situation at hand, I do believe he is guilty, he has confessed.

 

they obviously deserve whatever we can dish out, huh?

Not necessarily, but it makes decisions easier (see Dahmer example above).

 

You have already as much as admitted that you view this person as being inferior in terms of basic 'allowable' rights by pre-judging him without seeing evidence; which in your own society you would see as an abhorrent abuse.

He confessed. I still believe he is entitled to justice, which is why I don't think any 'extreme' torture methods should be used. I need to backpedal on my food deprivation statement, I think that is going too far.

Thirdly, there will always be another way to get the required information, which was conveniently not mentioned in your scenario.

There may be another way, but the other way could be extremely unlikely. For example, a CIA agent could have infiltrated the Al-Quaeda organization and promoted rank until he was allowed to see high-level information. Possible, but unlikely.

 

Canada organise an occupying force and invade the States, deposing Bush's government. It's highly likely that all those nut-job militia types would start blowing anything Canadian-looking (and, let's face it, anything else that looks like fun that hasn't caught fire yet) with their bizarre arsenals and home made pipe bombs.

I do not think they would blow up their own citizens, which is where they cross the line from a resistance to terrorists. I can understand resistance, though I may not agree with it. There is no excuse for intentionally targetting innocent people or threatening to wash the streets with blood if citizens elect their own leader.

 

Just to reiterate, I do not support extreme torture.

[Sayonara]

I know I came off as a bit barbaric there, so I want to expand a little bit. In theory it is quite reprehensible, but I believe if we are honest with ourselves, most people will find that they do not hold criminals in the same regard as they hold their elderly neighbor who brings over pies.

But to say that this means that they are more willing to let them suffer is a non sequitur.

 

 

Some do not regard the criminals right to freedom as important as their own. For others, the criminals right to life is not as important as their own. Still others do not value the criminals right to vote, or right to persue happiness. If one does enough introspection they will find some aspect of a criminals life which they do not value as much as their own. From this, I do not think it is a giant leap to the notion that people value their own lives or the lives of other 'noncriminals' as much as their own.

Be careful - you are blending the concept of life as "a quality of the living" with the concept of life as is "possessed by the individual". The difference is that one is a continuous measure, the other occurs in discrete units.

When I talk about life being sacred, I am referring to the former. Whether or not Joe Bloggs would rather Dave the burglar lost his life (discrete) than him lose his own is not in any direct way related to the value of the life (continuous) in question - it's simply natural tendencies towards self-preservation.

 

 

If someone was forced to chose between the life of their friendly neighbor and the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, I do not believe it would be a tough moral decision regarding who to chose. To actually conclude your decision may be tough for some, because it means the end of human life. However, I strongly believe it is human nature to place value on others based on their actions. For some, this may be a conscious decision. For others, it may be an unconscious decision or a decision which is kept personal. This decision is not made with the blind eye of justice, and I'm not purporting that it is.

See above.

 

 

Indeed, I don't know how out of place it is, but I do not necessarily feel constrained by the beliefs of others.

I don't mean to imply any artificial constraints; I am simply surprised that you do not have a more 'Christian' (for want of a better word, sorry ) view.

 

 

Indeed, which is why I chose the word "suffering". Do criminals not suffer in prison? They may suffer physically, spiritually (in the case of the religious), psychologically, or all of the above. The result is the same: people suffer as the result of punishment.

Some do, some do not. There is no absolute measure that can be applied to all prisoners in the penal system.

 

However, we can be assured that someone who is going to be interrogated will likely receive intense measures of deep anguish.

 

 

I was using 'guilty' in a general context, but as to the situation at hand, I do believe he is guilty, he has confessed.

 

He confessed. I still believe he is entitled to justice, which is why I don't think any 'extreme' torture methods should be used. I need to backpedal on my food deprivation statement, I think that is going too far.

To be fair, reports of his confession were released after you wrote the post to which I was responding, so you escaped answering my issues there.

 

 

There may be another way, but the other way could be extremely unlikely. For example, a CIA agent could have infiltrated the Al-Quaeda organization and promoted rank until he was allowed to see high-level information. Possible, but unlikely.

I understand that. My problem is that it just goes to highlight exactly how much suffering we are prepared to cause for our own convenience.

 

 

I do not think they would blow up their own citizens, which is where they cross the line from a resistance to terrorists. I can understand resistance, though I may not agree with it. There is no excuse for intentionally targetting innocent people or threatening to wash the streets with blood if citizens elect their own leader.

So not "if they blew up their own citizens they would be terrorists", but "they wouldn't do that because they would then be terrorists". Whut?

 

I am primarily asking you if it's okay for them to blow up Canadians, and expect not to be interrogated, under the given circumstances.

[Aardvark]

If you inherently assign someone's life at a lower value than that of any other' date=' you are no better than a terrorist.[/quote']

 

I think you are over stating your case. It is perfectly possible to assign relative values to peoples lives. Sometimes doctors have to do just that when choosing who should receive an organ for transplant. I can't imagine anyone calling transplant surgeons terrorists.

 

Also, humans have natural loyalities, family members lives are more important that strangers lives. To argue that all lives are completely equal is pure utilitarianism, an honourable philosophical position but at variance with the reality of natural morality and loyalities.

 

To ask someone to assign the same value to the life of an enemy soldier as to a soldier from their own country may make perfect logical sense but runs against our natural loyalities so strongly as to become an absolutely absurd proposition.

 

As for torturing terrorists, we should avoid that, not because of the terrorists 'rights', but for our own sakes. Once we start to behave like that we start to become that which we hate. Best not to stare into the chasm to long, it might start to stare back.

[Sayonara]

I think you are over stating your case. It is perfectly possible to assign relative values to peoples lives. Sometimes doctors have to do just that when choosing who should receive an organ for transplant. I can't imagine anyone calling transplant surgeons terrorists.

After they've already reduced the needs of the group to a best-bet set of numbers.

 

 

Also, humans have natural loyalities, family members lives are more important that strangers lives. To argue that all lives are completely equal is pure utilitarianism, an honourable philosophical position but at variance with the reality of natural morality and loyalities.

Loyalty doesn't actually make a life more valuable though, does it? Saying that someone is likely to prefer one person over another has nothing to do with the actual value of those two people's lives.

 

 

To ask someone to assign the same value to the life of an enemy soldier as to a soldier from their own country may make perfect logical sense but runs against our natural loyalities so strongly as to become an absolutely absurd proposition.

Which is the root of the problem.

 

His ideology may be our enemy. His methods may be our enemy. His life is not (in fact, that wouldn't even make sense.)

 

 

As for torturing terrorists, we should avoid that, not because of the terrorists 'rights', but for our own sakes. Once we start to behave like that we start to become that which we hate. Best not to stare into the chasm to long, it might start to stare back.

You argued against the main points and came to the same conclusion. How... perfectly freakish.

[blike]

But to say that this means that they are more willing to let them suffer is a non sequitur.

I don't feel that it is. It is part of human nature to assign value to the lives of others (similarly the willingness to let suffer), and we do it quite frequently in a variety of different ways. Nations as a whole do this, local governments do this, and individuals do this.

 

One main idea that needs to be addressed before I go on is to clarify the value of life. Your argument requires (or assumes) that there is a certain value of life which is not subjective. You said in a post that, "Loyalty doesn't actually make a life more valuable though, does it?" which implies that there is a value of life beyond human subjectivity. That is, although an individual may chose to kill a criminal instead of his neighbor, the criminal still has a life value of x beyond subjectivity. I don't think this is a valid assumption. Loyalty does make a life more valuable in the eyes of the loyal. The value of human life is inherently subjective. There is are no natural laws which define the value of life; it is merely a sociological construct.

 

I still firmly believe my original assumption: that all humans rate lives on a relative scale. This stems beyond self-preservation. The values may not come to light except in extreme circumstances, but they are an underlying factor in every day decision making. One good illustration is the feeling of remorse, which can be observed in societies and individuals. The loss of someone may be a cause for celebration for one group, and a cause for morning in another group.

 

All this to say that when people make the decision regarding who to kill, they are making a value judgement on the life of each. I still need to respond to the rest of your post, but it's time for dinnuh.

[Phi for All]

For me, this boils down to a question of whether or not we want to win this war by any means possible. If we allow that drugs can be used (which many consider to be a form of torture), how much easier will it be to just give the prisoner the occasional shock from a car battery, just to get them talking? And from there it just keeps escalating.

 

If you have justified in your own mind that since these people are terrorists and our lives mean nothing to them, therefore it's OK to feel the reverse, you have started down a very dark road which will eventually lead you to justify any means to get what you want. Where do you think the terrorists got this doctrine?

 

I couldn't get any of you to torture or kill someone just by telling you that they deserved it. But if I slowly build up a picture in your mind, step by step, that you will be doing a good thing, that your goodness will be triumphing over evil, helping you to overcome all the moral barriers to violence and mayhem you have carefully built up over your lifetime, I might succeed.

 

This is what we have to fight against, allowing our sense of what is right to be eroded a little at a time. Let these prisoners be roughed up a little to get them to talk and soon enough we'll be videotaping their beheadings so we can show their families our system of justice.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think its alot easier to think of this one man's life personally, and take for granted the other lives in danger becuase of him. We don't know their names, we don't know who they are. We know he this man is, its easy to think of everyone else as just numbers. But there are faces behind every number.

[Sayonara]

I still firmly believe my original assumption: that all humans rate lives on a relative scale.

I'm off to bed now, so sorry for reducing your argument down to this one phrase (although it does seem to be the jist of it.)

 

I'm saying that that is a problem, and as usual for the purposes of convenience people fall back on it without consideration for the wider ramifications.

That's the part I object to. Appealing to common practice doesn't change the fact that subjectivity can spoil as well as save.

 

Imagine there are two people you have never met before who, for whatever reason, are fighting to the death. They both have their reasons for valuing their life over the other's.

Now you come along and see them struggling. Which one will you help? Will you make that choice? If not, why not? If there is only a subjective scale for valuing life, then surely it's just as valid to shoot them both, or walk away giggling, as it is to help either one of them.

 

Is that the society we live in? If it is, then you can see why I might have a problem with that.