|
i am surprised that you are not concerned about determinations of innocence or guilt, mojo. because you seem to spend some time reading law, i would have thought that determinations of guilt would be important to you. ah well, live and learn i guess---the rationale i talked about in my post seems only to be recapitulated in your response.
it is also surprising that you would tacitly support a notion of the role of torture in interrogation (that is prior to any trial) that worked so well for the inquisition---you might ask yourself why so much modern law was elaborated in order to protect citizens from that kind of abuse. in case the point is not clear: torture is not new---it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that information gathered under such conditions would in all likelihood be more about the victims desire for the torture to stop as it would any "truth"--so not only is the tactic barbaric, but the information obtained is often worthless. but no matter, i suppose: not for you at least.
unless you really believe that the Law is drawn to the Guilty so due process is just gravy--but i'd like to let you in on something--when kafka talked about this view of the law, he was making fun of it.
even if you are correct in your narrow focus on the letter of the law in this case, i have to say that your defense of torture strikes me as appalling.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|