Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kahn
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.  |
Very interesting. I must take time to digest this before I reply.
(Not to threadjack, but he reason I am passionate about this is simple, we know the worst... but if we don't define the least, then we are in trouble. Because torture to me is horrendous and NEVER should be used.
But if we have people calling everything done torture.... then we minimize the word by overuse and overkill, thus it no longer has meaning (maybe to individuals but to the whole, the government, the military etc there is no meaning anymore to the word.
If for instance you cannot even answer "withholding 1 day's exercise and/or rations" as torture or not, the problem becomes huge.
Somewhere, along the lines, a compromise has to be reached as to what is "uncomfortable/unpleasant and what is torture. Because if the compromise is not found, both sides will begin to go farther apart in opposite directions, until the word and the actions have no meaning whatsoever.
Those who went too far calling things torture will be seen as lenient beyond all reason..... those who went to far torturing will be seen as bloodthirsty and without conscience and the middle will be left scratching their head wondering how it got this far.
I just want to see a that line... and the start of seeing that line is seeing how people define torture in their own words. Not someone else's, not attacking someone for asking, but simply answering the question so people can understand each other's definition of the word, so it can have a true meaning and it will never be minimized/obsolete and ignored. So that the actions will not go unpunished because there is the line that every has agreed to, or people unfairly punished for doing something the majority does not consider torture.)
(I, as I wrote above, could see personal events skewing my judgment but short of those.... I could never see myself committing acts I believe to be torturous.... but again, What I believe may not be torturous others may think it is.)