|
funny aint it pan?
i said that it was unambiguous after cruising back and forth between the four treaties that dc linked to.
i dont see the ambiguity about the intentional inflicting of pain, threats of death, etc. as a device to extract information--if i were pushed on the question, i would probably err on the side of less rather than more latitude.
there is a kind of conceptual black hole in the center of this--defining exactly what pain is. i think there is a general agreement about it from the language of the agreements--and personally, i am not sure that i see the point of heading down the route of trying to work out where pain stops and starts in order to open up more space for inflicting it. because it seems to me that is the route travelled by the bush administration regarding practices like waterboarding---and it really is kind of a problem, determining an "objective" standard by means of which you can determine when pain of another stops and starts.
how would you do it?
see what i mean?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|