Response to Robert
Wow. I suppose I would most trust someone deeply committed to following Jesus to be able to stop interrogation at the right point. But it doesn’t generally seem to work that way.
Well, as you stated later in your response, “…most of us probably have no idea what we’re talking about…”
I’m too soft to handle stuff like interrogation, and I think most Christians are. How about you guys?
I think most people would have trouble, at first.
I’m going to exercise the right to disagree with my self…I don’t think Christians are the only ones we could trust with this kind of work…second, i don’t think i could do this, but i’ve never had the opportunity or the training, so I don’t know if I could stomach it or not.
You’re right. Followers are not the only folks who can do this. I am exercising my right to disagree with myself.
BTW, Joe Navarro, a former FBI interrogator with something like 12,000 interrogations under his belt, comments that brutal interrogation methods simply are not effective. Read about it here: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/25/Features/Signal_flair.shtml
I read this article and I think we are comparing apples and oranges. Take a look at this paragraph: He gave his usual speech, informed by 25 years’ experience: that getting to know subjects works better than torture; subjects who are beaten or stressed will say whatever the interrogator wants to hear; and physical torture in the face of fanatical hate only strengthens a subject’s resolve.
I agree, but I was not advocating torture in the first place. Second, what if you don’t have the time to “get to know the subject”? Third, while a subject may say whatever to stop the pain, an investigation will verify the information given by the suspect and determine its veracity. Fourth, he has experience, an expert opinion, but others have written of the efficacy of aggressive questioning, so in the end, we’re left to decide by our ethics. You raise some good point. Thanks for commenting.