LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut interogation is not.Originally Posted by nichomach
But interogation is not.
No, but what we are seeing evidence of is torture.
Eh, its in your post......
I clicked reply with quote.....
Explain...
Yes I agree with you it is wrong, but the point of interogation is to put the person your interogating under stress/strain in order to extract information from them, if that person then knows that you cant really push the button on them then that gives them something to think about and aim for in there resistance...
Are you getting what I mean or am I not explaining properly....?
Theres a fine line between torture and interogation, I think tbh were seeing images of both but like I said its a fine line, there are many fine lines were wars are concerned, the bit I dont get is the people that 'fake' these sort of images....
I get what you mean, but interrogation doesn't equal torture; stress can be induced in any number of different ways without using physical abuse. Fatigue, deception, simply wearing the subject down can all work. I'd also note that subjects being tortured are likely to say whatever they think will make it stop, truth or otherwise.
Well, look at the effects - and see my earlier comments about torture acting as a recruiting poster for the very people we're supposed to be fighting.
I made an earlier point that torture will not gain you good information as the subjuct will say what they think you want to hear to make it stop. Therefore interrogation techniques have been developed. I can't speak for the US, where in this particular case it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) a group of redneck part-timers has been used to staff this prison. My own belief is that this was a mistake and professional military police should have staffed this establishment. I have, however been subject to UK forces interrogation techniques on more than one occaision. This was due to the job I did not because I was a terrorist before anyone asks and no, I'm not a member of the special forces either. I can assure you that they are 'robust' techniques and if argued in a court of civil law would probably be called 'torture' in the context of our society. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, constant cross questioning. Also the use of stress positions (very uncomfortable) and the ubiquitous black bag. All designed to break one down mentally. No physical violence though. Unless you call pushing and shoving such. But let's retain some perspective on this.
I personally feel that such techniques are acceptable where justified. Whether you agree or not is up to you. It's a free country(ish) and I'm entitled to my opinion. Beatings and murder are not. Apart from the obvious argument. An opponent is much more likely to surrender in a sticky situation if they believe that they will be humanely treated (you an argue for what is and isn't humane seperately). A much better prospect than a die hard because they believe they have nothing to lose.
So we're back to the moral dilemma. Where do you draw the line as to how far you go to extract what could be life saving information? Where does it become counter productive? Also, just how many people are being held in these prisons? I really don't know the figures.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Sorry Trig , I should have made it clear in that post that Zaks original post was being quoted in there too, I should have put his inside quotes sorry my bad.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote