Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
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.
|
Ah, but some will say pain in any aspect is torture. Nowhere did I say anything about withholding sleep for 72 hours.
I am simply stating my view on what I accept on torture maybe very different than another's. Thus if I answered "I don't believe in torture" and later I say, "I believe withholding a day's rations and some sleep truly acceptable".... I may have 5 people here jumping on me telling me how I just approved torture. And I am sure there would be some who would agree with me that that is not torture.
You may want to be able to put it all neatly in a box, but I don't think it can be. I think it is very subjective, even if it doesn't mean to be.
Quote:
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.
|
But people rationalise things everyday. No matter who we may be, none of us are perfect, we rationalise why we speed, why we use drugs, why we believe the things we do. I would argue that life itself is built on rationalizations.
Thus, when it comes to torture, our prison systems, anything, it is based on the parties in charge and their definitions and rationalizations of the existing laws.
But that is just me, you argue that the laws and guidelines are set and very concrete and thus there is no interpretation or rationalizations because there is no need to have them.
In the end, who is truly right and who is wrong.... most probably, in truth, lies somewhere in the middle.