Torture Part II
This post seeks comments ONLY from those who believe that torture is always intrinsically evil. If you don’t and want to comment, please do so on the previous “Torture Survey” found here. What constitutes “torture?”
February 17, 2006
Nobody Has Trackbacked Yet
The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/399/trackback
February 17th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I know what’s not torture: if people would willingly subject themselves to it for money (such as Survivor or Fear Factor) it’s not torture. So, seriously, putting somebody in a swimming pool of Madagascar cockroaches is not torture in my book.
I do like the torture memos definition (which did not come out of thin air, but out of US court decisions) that torture inflicts as much pain as organ failure.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I would ad that it is not torture if the conduct is something our armed forces are required to undergo as training, or if parents may discipline their children in that way without it constituting child abuse.
February 17th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
If 9/11 could’ve been prevented by introducing Mr. Goodwrench to Mohamad Atta’s scrotum on 9/10, then I guess I’m pro-torture.
February 18th, 2006 at 6:20 am
I’d say torture is the application of force by a person or persons intended to cause physical or mental pain on a captive.
I don’t know what organ failure feels like. I had a kidney stone once and I’d say that level of pain would more than qualify. Having to watch a family member or friend suffer physical abuse would qualify.
Things like our “stress positions” and playing loud music can probably cross over the line depending on the intensity and duration.
February 19th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
“I would ad that it is not torture if the conduct is something our armed forces are required to undergo as training,”
Sorry, but having been drown-proofed in the Navy, this would leave waterboarding open as not torture.
We need to rethink that. My drownproofing was voluntary, to prepare me for a future possibility, and it was done once.
Waterboarders aren’t volunteers, it isn’t being done with their good in mind and it is usually repeated again and again in a short span.
February 20th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I can see your point Franklin, but “torture” generally means something atrocious. If people volunteer for something, it means that something isn’t as atrocious as torture.
Consider this: would you have volunteered to “introduce Mr. Goodwrench to [your] scrotum”? No? Then that’s torture. Would you volunteer for the rack? No? Then it’s torture. How about having your arms tied to the cieling, water poured over your body, and electrical shocks applied in response to your answers to questions? Torture as well.
But you were willing to volunteer for “drown proofing,” so apparently that’s in a different league. Although you probably wouldn’t volunteer to repeated drown proofing in a short timeframe.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:49 am
What if it were a training technique used on our armed forces to train them to resist torture?
That’s what SERE is. I mean, really.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:51 am
(also, presumably soldiers know that there would be bad consequences for their interrogators if they were actually drowned during SERE training–a reassurance detainees lack.)
February 21st, 2006 at 2:43 pm
That’s true, Katherine, but if it’s good enough for the US military, (IMO) it’s good enough for terrorists.
Seriously, it seems odd to suggest that doing something as part of training is AOK, but doing the same thing for interrogation is morally outrageous. Wouldn’t that imply that military training is morally outrageous?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:46 pm
No–consent matters, as does the purpose of it.