C.I.A. Interrogation Endorsement

C.I.A. Interrogation Endorsement


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?hp


In December 2004 it looked like the bush administration abandoned its usage of brutal interrogations in the central intelligence agency. However when Alberto Gonzalez became the attorney general in 2005, he gave out his own opinion, except that this was kept secret from the public. His opinion was that it was entirely necessary to use vicious methods of extracting information, such as placing their head underwater , and removing it before they drown, or hitting the terrorist suspect repeatedly in the face until the desired information

For the last two years, Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened constantly to ban the use of violent means of interrogation. However the opinions issued by the Justice Department are still going strong. This was until the head of the office of legal counsel Jack Goldsmith withdrew the memorandum set to give the Central Intelligence Agency the right to use harsh torture methods. After he withdrew the memorandum, Mr. Goldsmith gave his real opinions against torture techniques. Six months after he gave his statements, the Justice Department came out with a new opinion, this time stating “Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.”
However, as of today October 4th, 2007, The White House denied reports that a secretly issued Justice Department opinion in early 2005 cleared the way for the return of painful interrogation tactics that the Bush administration had earlier seemed to renounce. In a nutshell, Bush basically said it never happened. As stated by White House Secretary Dana Perino that it is a policy of the United States that we don’t torture people. Then when Dana Perino was asked about the opinion issued by the Justice Department regarding harsh torture methods he would not comment.
Honestly in my own opinion I could see why the Central Intelligence Agency might be gun ho on using torture methods. It’s because maybe, just maybe, one of these so called terrorists, may actually be capable of providing us with crucial information that may win us the war. Also I can plainly see why the White House administration would want to cover up anything remotely having to do anything with torture. That is because they are trying to improve the public approval rating (which is already bad), and they would be considered hypocrites if they came out and said they sued torture methods, when they said they wouldn’t.
HOWEVER, although I am all for the use of information extraction techniques to extract vital information, I do not see the need to use overly violent means of torture. Some people may criticize this and say that “torture is torture” there is no good torture, and bad torture. Well these people need look no farther then Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. He is not even able to raise his arms above his head because he was struck with the butt of a rifle in his shoulder, while a POW. It’s sad to say that we are not to far from this same thing in terms of torture. The virtues of our methods can present long term physical problems; It's things like this which consist if torture can me considered morally reprehensible.

Instead I think we should use purely psychological based methods of extracting the information we desire. There are many more subtle ways of extracting information psychologically such as the placement of guilt into the interrogation subjects mind, or instilling fear into their mind so that the mere thought of pain will cause them to break down into a confession. Even the mere child’s play of trick questions can be used as an effective tool for extracting information. This by no means would I ever consider a method of torture. Even if it was, it would not be nearly as bad, as just taking someone into a room and beating them into a sense of honesty.