"Truth Serum" at Git 'mo

Great Debates
1

This started as a GQ but I figured it would promptly moved, so…

Have we used sodium pentothal on detainies at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? From what I’ve read, while it won’t guarantee a confession, it will reduce inhibitions and the subject will be more likely to tell the truth.

Is it illegal? Unconstitutional? Effective?

[/GQ][GD]

Should we?

I’m of the opinion that yes, we should use this method of interrogating enemy combatants in an attempt to thwart future terrorist attacks.

I don’t believe this constitutes torture, or cruel and unusual punishment. It is, after all, a sedative and anesthetic.

Furthermore, I realize this could construed as a violation of the fifth ammendment right against self-incrimination. In this regard I would not advocate it’s use by civilian law enforcement against U.S. citizens. I’m thinking of a strict policy of use by the military.

What do you think, Teeming Millions?

2

This article addresses the effectiveness of so-called “truth drugs” in interrogation. (Capsule summary: there’s no drug that will make people tell the truth, but some can be used in a way which gives interrogators something to work with).

I am unqualified to discuss the legality or the (US) constitutionality of forcibly administering drugs to persons detained indefinitely without trial. You can have three guesses as to my stance on the morality of such a practice.

3

Good point. I guess the second half of my post addresses the morality of such a practice, without specifically stating so.

So add Is it immoral? to my OP.

I do believe that these are two distinct questions, however.

Calling such practices immoral would not necessarily preclude the ‘Should we do it anyway?’ question.

4

I think morality went right out the window when four airliners were simultaneously hijacked. . .

IIRC, it is not against the Law of Armed Conflict to use such methods of interrogation. While it might be undesirable to the public opinion, it is not illegal. I’m unsure if these “detainees” were actually declared ‘prisoners of war’ or not - I don’t believe so. Therefore, we have a looser, more free liscence to use whatever humane means necessary to get what intelligence we need.

Is it immoral? I don’t believe so. We are not physically or medically harming them in any way. Would it be immoral to overfeed them, cure their afflictions, or give them to the Royal treatment in order to “win their hearts and minds” like the Montagnards in Vietnam? If they drank, would it be immoral to feed them a little extra whiskey to see what came off of their tongues?

End result: With the given war we are fighting, and given the clandestine, subversive enemy we have on our hands, I think the means are just in this case.

Tripler
What price would you pay to end these shenanigans?

5

Are these the same detainees who are being held indefinitely without explanation? How do we know they even have anything to offer?

6

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/26/torture.htm

7

Heartfelt thanks to the fourr who replied.

Does nobody else have an opinion?

Geeze when I say we should drug our enemies I expect a better response.

8

I’m pretty sure that it would be against the 5th amendment, what with the whole not-forcing-self-incrimination thing. Morally, though, I don’t think it’s wrong–someone who is put on the stand should tell the truth about what he’s done, even if it’s bad. However, I guess I can’t take away people’s right to (attempt) to lie.

9

But we don’t extend our own constitutional rights to these captives, so the fifth amendment is out the window along with due process and legal representation. It seems to me the fifth amendment would probably play second fiddle to those anyway.

Federal Court: Guantanamo Detainees Have No Right to Use U.S. Courts

10

Would there be anything for them to “tell”?

I think the 9/11 were a one-shot deal. They could’ve thrown us for a loop with more minor attacks after that (look what a handful of anthrax letters did).