NationStates Jolt Archive

To what degree should interrogation be carried out?

07-07-2005, 07:42
Its a common issue here, so I figured we can do with a clear, well defined poll without terribly biased options :P

These are, of course, based on my opinions of what a 'degree' implies in these matters, so bear with me. Half degrees are employed because its traditional to employ the '1st, 2nd and 3rd' degrees.

The poll is in refrence to its use in military terms, IE: Against terrorist suspects and/or confirmed terrorists. Opinions about the 'degree' that should be used against criminals and such is welcome as well.

1st Degree: Ask them questions, 'soft' psychological techniques (Guilt trips, convince them your right via talking to them, that sort of thing), social depravation

1st and a half Degree: 1st degree plus use of interogation drugs, 'harder' psychological techniques.

2nd Degree: Threats, humiliation, 'hard' psychological techniques

2nd and a half degree: Cause pain, but leave no long or short term effects afterwards. Use of sensory depravation and similar.

3rd Degree: Use of all methods possible that would not lead to the death of the 'patient' in the short term.

3rd and a half degree: 3rd Degree plus 'primitive' methods, IE: breaking of bones, insertion of heated objects into orifices, whatever is needed to gain the information required. Death will most likely be the end result.
07-07-2005, 07:45
2nd degree. I don't believe in resorting to physical violence as it doesn't work a lot of the time and I'd rather be better than the scum that's being interrogated.

EDIT: I believe that sensory deprivation should be under 2nd degree or physical pain moved up to 3rd degree. I fully support sensory deprivation/overload, but not actual physical pain.
07-07-2005, 07:50
I was generaly refering to inflicting pain by methods that could not do any harm other than, obviously, causing some pain. The 'drawer trick' comes to mind, if you've ever seen Dragnet (the movie).

I went for the second and a half degree, because I dont mind a confirmed terrorist going through a week or so of withdrawls or suffering some bruises.
Greater Valia
07-07-2005, 07:51
I voted for the last option, but would you support turture that caused overwhelming excruciating pain but did not hurt the victim at all?
07-07-2005, 07:57
Most of the time, torture just gets you what you want to hear.

Ask, use some nice tricks, use guilt, use lifetime lockup, but remember: If they're really terrorists, then they have no qualm with walking into a place wearing a C4 vest and pushing the button ... what makes you think nipple elecroshock matters all that much?
07-07-2005, 07:58
Not terribly opinionated? Who knows if the person is really a terrorist or not. They have their own opinion on what the world should be, and we have our own. They would interrogate us, too, if they were in our place. The poll makes it sound like we are holy, and yet it's not terribly opinionated?

But in a completely rational sense, if we want to interrogate, and do it efficiently, then the right amount of pain and discomfort must be applied to pressure information out. I think anyone would agree with that, if the interests was to get information. Just forget cuddling for a moment.
07-07-2005, 08:11
Chinese water torture is REALLY good if you're patient.
07-07-2005, 08:24
Interogation is an necessary evil often so I am in favour of up to second degree, depending of course on what they know. If they are the quilvalent of bin laden, al zaquiri(sp?), etc. possilbly third, but we do not want to fall into evil fighting it
07-07-2005, 08:46
We aren't evil, nor good, and neither are they. The choice to label which side is which depends on the opinionated, biased mind.
07-07-2005, 09:36
I voted second and a half. I’m all for knocking around a suspected terrorist a little if he’s a high ranking guy or incredibly stubborn, but nothing beyond that.
07-07-2005, 09:57
I chose the first degree. Unlike some people in this thread, I would try to be civilized about the interrogation. For fuck's sake, torture? And especially when the guy could possibly be innocent?! That's childish!
Chocolate fondues
07-07-2005, 10:14
i think that the use of minimal force is fine, but simply ineffective against trained agents. there are after all ways to overcome physical pain with enough mental conditioning. such things are covered in special ops training.

so i'm more for psychological methods of extracting information. truth serums and the like.

there is a risk that people may be innocent. and it is easy to howl bloody murder at some of the harsher methods. but that would be extremely naive. people and agencies responsible for extracting the information literally hold millions of lives in their hands.
07-07-2005, 10:26
'1st degree'. They are criminals, and they should be treated as such. That includes not beating them, drugging them, torturing them or otherwise inflicting more physical or mental harm than is permitted under an assortment of international and national human rights acts. To do any of those things makes you just as bad as they are, and also makes you hypocritical for fighting under the guise of 'freedom and democracy'. You cannot excuse such behaviour any more than they can.
07-07-2005, 10:30
i'm for interrogation <i>up to</i> the 2.5 degree.
Necessarily, interrogation should begin at very low levels, and escalate slowly to ensure a reasonable suspicion that the subject is, in fact, witholding information. This suspicion should be proportionate to the next degree in question prior to administering techniques. It is, of course, always better to err on the side of caution, but if the intense discomfort of a possibly cogniscent subject will prevent even one innocent's death, well... That's not a terribly hard call to make. The trick is all in the making sure you've got the right guy.
07-07-2005, 10:35
I chose the first degree. Unlike some people in this thread, I would try to be civilized about the interrogation. For fuck's sake, torture? And especially when the guy could possibly be innocent?! That's childish!

In the words of the librarian from Warhammer,

"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt."
07-07-2005, 10:45
Actual Torture can be overcome through training (as mentioned before), personal conditioning, and even hobbies/activities (remembering a 'pay-to-play' game in Juarez to see how long one can hold a pair of live electrodes...)
Psychologyical breaking is, imho, acceptable. (Degree 2.5) provided the other methods fail to work.

People can adjust their perceptions to death or pain. Mind-games, sensory deprivation, and the like are much, much, tougher to beat, and far more likely to yeild workable results.
07-07-2005, 11:14
Torture is unacceptable. This includes both physical and mental abuse. If we get down to their level what is the difference between them and us.

If democracy needs torture to survive, it is not worth surviving.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
07-07-2005, 19:48
I never believed in taking prisoners during war, so I guess I'd say kill them. Things are so much more efficient that way, and you can't really make much of a case for abused corpses (keep your minds out of the gutter children) so, no prisoner abuse scandals.
07-07-2005, 19:53
oops... i voted for 3rd degree before reading the definitions. i was thinking of my parents' general reaction when i was in high school and woke them up after slinking into the house at 3am.