Close Topic Options

Interrogation

Are you for or against interrogation? Under what circumstances do you think it is justifiable and to what extreme? Consider the following:

1. A suspect in a criminal investigation
2. A civil prisoner who may no more
3. A military prisoner
4. A spy

Brutality pays poorly in interrogation:

After a Japanese soldier named Shuji Ishii was taken prisoner by American Marines on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II, he expected the worse, including being put to death. Instead, he wrote later in a memoir, he was astonished to find himself in a sanitary hospital and to be given clean drinking water, sufficient food, soap, medicine, cigarettes and a soft bed.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getart...o20041204a2.htm

Interrogation

In criminal investigations the interrogation is usually to allow both sides of the story to be told. Often times someone who has committed a serious crime is more likely to let everything out because it weighs so heavy on them. Any form of torture would be wrong though. When you see that people are held for sometimes days in a room and they admit to crimes that they did not commit, then that style of interrogation should be questioned.

Interrogation History & Civil Business Politics

There is a thin line between abuse and correct treatment, when talking about interrogation. How far an interrogation goes should not be based on the delict the suspect is there for...There should be the same rules for everybody ( genocide or double parking should have the same treatment)If found guilty then you can tell the difference in the way they should be treated...

Interrogation

I believe that interrogation can be very useful, if used properly and carefully...
I do not believe, however, that it should be used on civil witnesses or petty crimes, but for cases such as spies or Saddam Huissane... I think 'painful' interrogation it is totally ok.

For those of you who just hate the idea of painful interrogation, lets face it, it does happen, with or without your knowledge. And it must be effective or we would have stopped using it long ago.


Sharpshoey

Interrogation

What Is Wrong with Torture

Not a single senator, Democratic or Republican, has announced the intention to filibuster the nomination of White House Legal Counsel Alberto Gonzales, thus assuring that the face of legalized torture is attached to the position of Attorney General of the United States.
Ref. https://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2136

Interrogation

I find it interesting that the "news" that was reported here comes only from an avowed enemy of all things "Right".

From what little I have read on the issue, AG nominee Gonzales prepared a legal opinion, based on his understanding of law. He did NOT propose the use of any type of torture or abuse in interrogation. He did NOT condone the use of such methods. He only researched and presented an answer to a legal question.

There is nothing to indicate that he would encourage or condone the use of torture in any way.

Interrogation

It is a loaded question.

None of us would say please don't interrogate that person that may have hurt my family. Of course, if in the interrogation, the police were able to uncover who did it or a confession from the interrogate, we would most likely be all for it. I think it is unfortunate that in times like these that people don't look at their fellow countrymen and women as family.

Interrogation is fine and is needed. However, the parties performing the interrogation have very large responsibilities to fill. When a person is interrogated, they are under the physical responsibility of the group or government holding the individual. Any permanent harm or physically coerced confessions are a responsibility detainers. The fine should be potentially severe in order to hold the interrogation in check.

Just a thought,

Vincenzo

Interrogation Politics Business Civil & History

Interrogation is nothing more than formal questioning according to dictionary.com.

Torture is just one of the methods sometimes employed in interrogation, but that isn't what interrogation is. As far as torture or other extreme methods used in interrogation, I think it definately depends upon what the crime is for which the investigation is being conducted.

I do not think you can use torture when interrogating a normal criminal, even for the most hideous crimes. However, I think torture is fine in certain situations relative to war or terrorism. If torture will get the answers needed to save thousands of lives, I think torture is justified. However, to save one or two lives, it probably is not, which is why I don't think it is o.k. in an ordinary criminal investigation.

I also don't think this is something that the average police officer is qualified to conduct. Nor would I trust them to be impartial in conducting it. Another reason why I think it shouldn't be used in ordinary criminal cases, no matter how gruesome.

I think torture is best left to the military. However, interrogation in general is something necessary even for law enforcement officers.