Torture and interrogation: What are the boundaries?

[roach]

I recently saw a brilliant movie called "Unthinkable"- it's about a Caucasian American, ex-military guy, who converts to Islam and.....well, you gotta see the movie. It's basically about torture as an interrogation technique, and the limits to which an apparently civilized nation will go to protect itself. It's one of those rare unbiased Hollywood movies that refuses to take sides and makes one THINK.

See it if you can.

It made me start to think about the recent judgment of the Indian Supreme court declaring "Medical methods of interrogation" i.e, narco-analysis as unconstitutional. Pissed me off at the time, but then once I thought about it I realized IMO that narco-analysis is just the first step on that path, the path that touches and goes past Guantanamo Bay.............

My question, up to debate, is: What is an acceptable interrogation technique?

These are regular US military interrogation techniques:
1. Yelling
2. Loud music, and light control
3. Environmental manipulation
4. Sleep deprivation/adjustment
5. Stress positions
6. 20-hour interrogations
7. Controlled fear (muzzled dogs)

I'm sure Indian cops use the same or worse.

Here's an excerpt from the article.
In early May 2010, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by the outgoing chief justice, delivered a path-breaking judgment (1). It declared illegal, and a violation of human rights, the use of medical techniques such as narcoanalysis and various methods of “lie detection” (hereafter known as medical tests) in the investigation of individuals suspected of a crime, without their consent as well as other extensive safeguards.

Over the years, the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics has consistently criticised and opposed the participation of health professionals in carrying out the death penalty; in torture and in the police interrogation of people accused of a crime. IJME has opposed the use of scientifically questionable medical tests as methods of criminal investigation. The court’s judgement is a welcome response to a worrisome practice.

In no time in the country’s history have the use of medical tests, and the participation of doctors in police investigation, ever been as extensive (at the drop of a hat, tests such as polygraph, narcoanalysis and brain mapping have been ordered on thousands of individuals suspected of crimes including terrorism), as prominent (newspapers have carried front page reports, and the electronic media have run clips of people getting interrogated inside operation theatres) and as universally acceptable (even politicians have demanded that their rivals be put under narcoanalysis), as in the last few years. In a time of jingoism and political-ideological hype on terrorism, the irrationality of public opinion and swaying from professional commitment by individual health professionals, though highly reprehensible, can still be explained. However, what was more disgraceful and shameful was the fact that, barring a few who stuck their necks out, the community of health professionals in general maintained a stoic silence. The same was true for medical journals (barring a few) and medical associations that are supposed to provide leadership to the profession.

We hope the Supreme Court’s judgment will make the profession do some introspection. Indeed, not only do we all need to introspect on where we are failing as a profession, we also need to prepare ourselves for the next phase of our campaign to uphold professional ethics. This is because while this is a very good judgment to protect the human rights of those accused of crimes, it falls short on protecting the professional ethics of doctors, and in providing good guidance on the future use of medical techniques in interrogation.

But before we look at the judgment’s shortcomings let us first celebrate the areas in which it has strengthened human rights in the country.

Full article:
Supreme Court judgment on medical interrogation: on the just use of science and the ethics of doctors’ participation in criminal investigation

 

[Old School]

I have watched this movie and let me tell you that the reality exceeds those things in this movie. There is a limit of the coercive methods if the detainee is officially arrested. However, the common practice is not to officially acknowledge the arrest of a high risk person unless that person is co-operating. If you want to know about the people who have disappeared , here is the answer. The bottom line is that a detained person is relatively safe if he is officially declared arrested. But if that person does not exist on official documents , anything can happen as sky is the limit. It happens in Pakistan , India and everywhere.

 

[roach]

Well yes, you're right. What the public knows not, does not hurt anybody. I, on the other hand, am talking about a perfect world where nobody does anything outside the law. Yes, I know it sounds idiotic but that other dark side is beyond the scope of this thread and perhaps this forum...

Imagine that governments declared every arrest, and that every arrested suspect had to go up in front of a judge in 4 days or so, and that only legal methods of interrogation were followed. Would, in your opinion, a narco-test and / or / polygraph test be morally justified?

 

[Indiarox]

When i read this a few question arises in my mind to which i have no answer ?
1)Which is more important??
National security .
Humanitarian ethics .
2)How do you balance Humanitarian ethics and national ethics.
3)How far can we push it ?how much is too much?(With respect to cruelty in torture methods )

 

[gubbi]

Imagine that governments declared every arrest, and that every arrested suspect had to go up in front of a judge in 4 days or so, and that only legal methods of interrogation were followed. Would, in your opinion, a narco-test and / or / polygraph test be morally justified?

Yes. Perfectly legitimate.

But in the real world, the boundaries are often controlled by circumstances or situations and the nature of the crime. Like Old School so eloquently put it.

 

[Old School]

Imagine that governments declared every arrest, and that every arrested suspect had to go up in front of a judge in 4 days or so, and that only legal methods of interrogation were followed. Would, in your opinion, a narco-test and / or / polygraph test be morally justified?

Let us find some keywords here first :

legal methods of interrogation
narco-test and / or / polygraph test

Now, the existing legal methods of interrogation is enough to conduct the interrogation. The main objective of interrogation is focused on reductionism instead of asking about unknown hypothesis.

The main objective of polygraph test is not to see if someone is lying. It is rather used to extract confessions by making the suspect believe that we are aware of the lying.

 

[roach]

So that means we put choices about pain, life and death and innocence into the hands of men such as ourselves but only with different jobs and training.

The end justifies the means? The Supreme Court says no, it's not constitutional. Screwing around with someone's thoughts is wrong, they say.

Do we disregard that because we think it's ok? That places me above the law. To defend the country that the law is a part of. So I defend my country by breaking it's laws?

I'm confused.

 

[roach]

Let us find some keywords here first :

legal methods of interrogation
narco-test and / or / polygraph test

Now, the existing legal methods of interrogation is enough to conduct the interrogation. The main objective of interrogation is focused on reductionism instead of asking about unknown hypothesis.

The main objective of polygraph test is not to see if someone is lying. It is rather used to extract confessions by making the suspect believe that we are aware of the lying.

I think there's some confusion- I'm saying that Narco testing is illegal, and so are polygraph tests- unless the person to be question agrees. Would one be justified in doing it anyway? It wouldn't hold up in court.

 

[Old School]

When i read this a few question arises in my mind to which i have no answer ?
1)Which is more important??
National security .
Humanitarian ethics .
2)How do you balance Humanitarian ethics and national ethics.
3)How far can we push it ?how much is too much?(With respect to cruelty in torture methods )

It seems that you like the movie "Man on Fire"and so do I.
Every area in our life has some sort of ethics or otherwise the civilization will cease to exist. Now, the ethics in security is not same as the ethics in a hospital . We all have to abide by our own ethics for the betterment of the society. There will be some conflict for sure but we will have to find some compromise without abdicating the safeguards to the existential threats.

 

[Old School]

I think there's some confusion- I'm saying that Narco testing is illegal, and so are polygraph tests- unless the person to be question agrees. Would one be justified in doing it anyway? It wouldn't hold up in court.

These tests are not to be used in any court like the recorded materials. Forcing one to these tests is unfruitful for the legal process and it is not common.