Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Kahn, thank you for your post.... I overlooked it and I apologize. I agreed about the daily rations to some degree. And not to ague semantics but if torture is torture then what is the limit? Because ANYTHING can be considered torture by someone.... that is my point where do we draw that line? Between what is to some and what is truly acceptable to the most.
|
It's all good man.
You seem passionately involved in this part of the discussion and I'm trying not to derail or thread jack.
Any attempt to answer that question, I really think, is dependent upon the given circumstances of the situation. I realise this is vague and doesn't really answer your question, but it's as honest as I can be. In some situations, such as your prisoner has obviously not eaten in MANY hours, or perhaps even days, denying them food for one more minute might equate into torture. Whereas, a prisoner who is clearly not in need of food this second, and might actually be accustomed to eating one meal a day, or even every other day (depending on just how impoverished they may be, or the circumstances of their dietary needs), denying them food for several hours might easily be considered a forgivable oversight. Who can say?
If you are asking me this question specifically, I'd have to say denying anyone basic human necessities (such as food), for whatever reasons and under any normal circumstances, for longer than you would normally go without it yourself, could be construed as inhumane behaviour, thus classifying it as torture in my book. Keep in mind, I'm not the man who decides what is and is not torture, and I'm not any of the authors of the articles defining torture in any part or it's entirety. This is solely my opinion and should be viewed as such.
I think a good general rule of thumb is, if it is "unpleasant" in nature and you are not willing to do it to yourself, then doing it to someone else isn't right.
