Showing posts with label enhanced interrogation techniques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enhanced interrogation techniques. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

The Truth About Torture? Albert Mohler

Christian ethics and torture...an essay by Albert Mohler, of which the following is an excerpt:

McCain wants a categorical ban, but accepts that exceptions may, under extreme situations, be made. Krauthammer wants to define the exceptions so that a policy may be more coherent and, in his view, honest. Others, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, suggest that specific processes be put into place that would allow for the authorization of such techniques of coercion, going so far as to suggest something like a "warrant" for torture "to be required as a precondition to the infliction of any type of torture under any circumstances. "

This appears to be neither practical nor prudent, for the circumstances in which such a use of coercion might be conceived would often not allow time for such a warrant to be issued. The War on Terror is not fought on convenient terms. Furthermore, institutionalizing torture under such a procedure would almost surely lead to a continual renegotiation of the rules and constant flexing of the definitions.

We are simply not capable, I would argue, of constructing a set of principles and rules for torture that could adequately envision the real-life scenarios under which the pressure and temptation to use extreme coercion would be seriously contemplated.

Instead, I would suggest that Senator McCain is correct in arguing that a categorical ban should be adopted as state policy for the U.S., its military, and its agents. At the same time, I would admit that such a policy, like others, has limitations that, under extreme circumstances, may be transcended by other moral claims. The key point is this� at all times and in all cases the use of torture is understood to be morally suspect in the extreme, and generally unjustified.


My humble, oh so humble, thoughts on torture: As for waterboarding, this is a simulation of drowning as I understand it. The person only feels like he or she is drowning... A matter of degree, in other words.

Slapping is not punching. So is a slap not an act of torture? Does it not come down to the perception of the person being "tortured?" Each individual has his or her own strengths and weaknesses... for one person, a slap across the face may be so humiliating that it could be defined as torture for that individual. For another, it would take a broken rib.

The intention is also of importance: Is the intent to harm the person? Can any valuable information be obtained via torture? Evidence that I have read most recently indicates that torture is highly ineffective. Therefore, the intent must be to humiliate, harm, destroy that person.

In which case, torture is NEVER justified...

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Extraordinary Rendition and Waterboarding

Paul Reynolds, in 2005, wrote:

...as far as the definition of torture is concerned, a lot depends on what is meant by "severe." In a memorandum on 1 August 2002, the then Assistant US Attorney General Jay Bybee said that "the adjective severe conveys that the pain or suffering must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure." He even suggested that "severe pain" must be severe enough to result in organ failure or death.

Such an interpretation would obviously leave an interrogator a great deal of latitude, and that memo was subsequently disowned by the Bush administration.

What seems to have evolved is a series of interrogation techniques which in the US view do not amount to torture as defined by the UN Convention but which go beyond the simple business of asking questions.

Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

1. Grab: the interrogator grabs a suspect's shirt front and shakes him.

2. Slap: an open-handed slap to produce fear and some pain.

3. Belly Slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury. A punch is said to have been ruled out by doctors.

4. Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).

5. Cold Cell: a prisoner is made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water.

6. Water Boarding: the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Hillary Clinton and Extraordinary Rendition: What's Her Position?

What is Hillary Clinton's stand on Extraordinary Rendition?

why is she refusing to take a stand on secret prisons? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that these rendition camps began during the mid-90s under her husband's administration.

If she is elected president, the current policy could get modified a little bit. Waterboarding will almost definitely get banned. But when it comes to secret prisons in general, they will still exist under a Hillary administration.