|
pan--the ambiguity is about the nature of pain, not the nature of torture.
if you look at the definition of torture, much is couched in the language of use or intent.
and i think it a little strange to seriously ask the question of whether depriving someone of sleep for 72 hours in the interest of inducing some sleep-deprivation psychosis with the intent of extracting information is like taking away a kids' cookies or the like.
there is no mystery at the core of this: people are capable of barbarism, they are capable of sadism, they are capable of justifying absolutely inhuman treatment of others.
they can talk it away, rationalise it, make it ok: they treat others like things to be manipulated or destroyed.
this is easy---the past and sadly the present are replete with examples.
the real problem is what enables it--in contemporary terms, what ideology enables people to erase the fact that another is every bit as much a human being as they are and deliberately inflict pain on them.
since these ideologies are intechangeable as to outcome, and so it appears that we are base enough in this way that it is always possible to inflict extreme pain on others, then the law against torture bans the act itself.
i dont see any ambiguity here.
life is not a movie.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|