In a testimony before a House Subcommittee, Bradbury, the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, explicitly explained how the administration regulated the CIA's interrogation methods. The use of waterboarding (strapping detainees down and pouring water over their faces to think they were drowning) and the "Dutch method" (covering victim's mouths with cloth or cellophane while pouring water on their faces) were confirmed. However, in his testimony, he claims that the methods used weren't torture because they didn't cause enough severe and lasting pain to count as torture. Disregarding attempts to spin the tortures to make them seem less immoral (such as changing the wording to "rough interrogations" and calling them distressing, uncomfortable, and frightening), Bradbury was far more honest about the methods than before. Hopefully this results in a few more steps in the right direction.
While tortures are unconstitutional due to the 8th amendment, they do seem like they could be helpful in some situations. A fanatic group such as the one that planned the 9/11 attacks would almost definitely not surrender any information by a simple questioning, and their answers could very easily be necessary for stopping any subsequent attacks. On the one hand, we can torture them and possibly save lives by catching the rest of the group before they have a chance to kill more people, on the other hand, we could save people from going through the torture that would be required for them to give up the information. What do you think?
Justice Official Defends Rough CIA Interrogations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think its pretty hard to define what constitutes as "rough interrogation" methods versus torture. However, regardless of the severity of the methods used theres always a possibility that the suspect may just confess false information in order to avoid further "rough" interrogations. This could lead to even more problems if the false information is taken seriously and millions of dollars are spent investigating a false lead. Regarding Keith's question, I think its worth it to use rough interrogation methods if it gives us important information that will save lives.
Post a Comment