Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty (yet again) asks an intriguing question. If one had a 100% accurate truth serum with no (significant) side effects, when would its use be ethical. To whom and when could it be administered.
This question strikes to one of the key points of interrogation in the first place, in that the goal of interrogation is to induce the questioner to reveal truths against his untrammeled will. The question separates the violence from the morality of the act. His list of questions is quite good, and I’m not fully prepared to tilt against them, however I’ll offer a few thoughts.
- If such a serum did exist for some period of time, I think the most tempting (and scary) thing about it from a conservative viewpoint, is the temptation for the progressive to “reform” the entire judicial system (and thereby discarding almost a thousand years of English common law). What call would one have for a jury if one could question a defendant and expect a truthful answer without reservation. The problem of jurisprudence and the task of a lawyer would shift from techniques designed to “get at the truth” and devolve to decisions and questions about what questions might be put to the defendant and witness. The task of a defense lawyer would primarily shift to discussing and defending the list of questions to be put to the defendant and any called witnesses. The temptation of course would be that the job of the police would be very much simpler and innocents put being punished for crimes they didn’t commit would be very much reduced.
- From the Christian (Judeo-Christian to irk Mr Schraub?) point of view the general use of such methods would be “against my religion” as it were for the following reason. One of the fundamental tenents laid down by God, passed on by Moses in Exodus in the 10 commandments is that we are commanded “not to bear false witness”. A truth serum removes my capability not to bear false witness. This is no longer a commandment that I (or anyone) can choose to obey or not to obey. I am not to kill. But removing from me the capability or capacity to kill dehumanizes me. Removing from me the capability to lie likewise is also a dehumanizing thing.
- From the tenor of the rest of Mr Kuznicki’s questions, I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the rights accorded to enemy soldiers in time of war. Illegal combatants are in my eyes should be afforded even less rights. Given the tasks and risks inherent in wartime, I think it might be ethical to administer such protocols and restrict the asking of questions to those related to operational details and data. After an initial interrogation, the prisoner should be sequestered humanely until hostilities cease. The nature of the current WoT complicates matters. The combatants with, I believe, no exceptions are all illegal combatants and the scope of the war is not well defined and as such has a less well defined “ending point”, as the termination of hostilities is a fuzzy thing.
- We should be bound to treat illegal combatants differently for the protection of civilians. If we choose not to this will, in future wars and conflicts, further endanger civilians. This is unfortunate because in an age when finally conventional war can return somewhat to previous eras selectivity. Countering the large amounts of collateral damage caused by the inaccuracy of ordinance in prior 20th century wars. In the age of the hand weapon (sword, bow, etc) killing of civilians was intentional. In the last century, bombing of military relevant targets often fell on and killed civilians because of inefficiency and problems with targeting. Illegal combatants fight using civilians by intentionally using as civilians as shields and camouflage.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.