[bman9089]

I need some help. I'm writing a paper for my ethics class concerning whether or not "torturing terrorist suspects for information is morally permissible".

Now, first off, I need to define what torture is. One side says waterboarding is torture, another side says that if our own US soldiers can go through it without psychological or physical effects afterwards, then what's the big deal? Then there's the blurred line between torture and abuse.

So does the US implement any interrogation techniques which both political parties agree as 'torture'?

Also, do these techniques actually prevent terrorism? Any documented accounts? The main thing I need to focus on is whether or not valuable information comes from torture, as that's a good arguing point for whether or not we should use it. If there is nothing to gain, then the answer seems obvious.

Links to stories are also good as I could use some sources. Doesn't really matter which side, as I need both pro and con to pick a side and argue, as well as dismantle the opposition.

If any of you could point me to some information, I'd appreciate the help!

[PJL]

The Wiki article regarding waterboarding is actually very well footnoted and worth checking out as a starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Also look up the practice of "rendition" or "extraordinary rendition," which is the practice of a country that "doesn't torture" handing a person over to a country that does for interrogation.

[bman9089]

Huh. Rendition...has the US done that?

BTW, thanks PJL. I figure you'd have some good information.

[PJL]

It's believed that the US has engaged in rendition with people who are suspected of actually being involved in the 9/11/01 attacks (rather than just random people picked up on battlefields).

There's a really good article out there from the Washington Post where a military psychologist argues that waterboarding is torture, and it differentiates between what's done to prisoners v. what's done to American soldiers as training.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html

Here's an article from a JAG officer talking about how waterboarding used to be illegal and the punishment of those who have used it in the past:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

[bman9089]

Also, do you know of an official definition of torture? And who defines it? The UN, or the geneva conventions?

[PJL]

Amnesty International is a good source on torture.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

Here's another discussion of torture and the law.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/prohibits_torture.htm#footnote1

[bman9089]

I really appreciate this PJL. I hate writer's block.

[in_motion]

Originally Posted by bman9089

Also, do these techniques actually prevent terrorism? Any documented accounts? The main thing I need to focus on is whether or not valuable information comes from torture, as that's a good arguing point for whether or not we should use it. If there is nothing to gain, then the answer seems obvious

we haven't been attacked since 9/11...

[mpd8488]

I'd be wary of using Wikipedia in this instance. The information may or may not be well documented, but this is such a hot button issue that you really can't trust it. But by all means check out the references at Wikipedia as they will be very helpful.

You may have to do some digging to find some good information that doesn't come from media outlets (again, very touchy issue, can't trust American media as far as I'm concerned). Do you have access to JSTOR or another good database? A search there will turn up the expert opinions that will typically be quoted out of context by a journalist. That way you can find out what they're really saying.

[bman9089]

Originally Posted by in_motion

we haven't been attacked since 9/11...

True. But is that a direct result of interrogation measures?

[JG_Canuck]

Originally Posted by in_motion

we haven't been attacked since 9/11...

Originally Posted by bman9089

True. But is that a direct result of interrogation measures?

Exactly. Correlation does not imply causation. Better not try those kinds of arguments in a college paper...

[ceilers]

You may want to search for media sources from other countries. The CBC and BBC may be biased as much as American media sources, but won't be tainted by an American bias. If nothing else, they provide interesting points of view from other countries.

[CNY]

Originally Posted by bman9089

I need some help. I'm writing a paper for my ethics class AND I'M LOOKING ON JEEPFORUM FOR ANSWERS

Fixed it for you.


Seriously, though, you mention:

Originally Posted by bman9089

....whether or not "torturing terrorist suspects for information is morally permissible".

Now, first off, I need to define what torture is. .....

I would think that first off you need to define what is moral.

[yjJeff]

You should have a classmate tell another classmate a secret. Then waterboard that student... See how long it gets them to talk. Answer solved

[helicase50]

I just did a reaction paper to this for a crim class.

First go through and define, torture, moral, and terrorist (which technically there is no deffinition of, so see what you get). If you can't say what they are then how are you suppose to find a thing on either side, a terrorist could be called anyone.

here is some of what I used, for info/reference
http://levin.senate.gov/senate/statement.cfm?id=299242 , http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/061708ogrisseg.pdf , http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/10/30/waterboarding-is-torture…-period/ , http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/AMR51/177/2007/fr/dom-AMR511772007en.html

also look for the log of Dr.Leonard S. Rubenstein, it is probably out there somwhere, try not too many .com places and no wiki