|
"Depends on what you're definition of 'torture' is" which seems to be the common excuse to torture people presently, sounds suspiciously like "Depends on what you're definition of 'is' is."
Why is it that there seems to be a great deal of group overlap between the people who can't fathom any justifications for complex, nuanced perspectives on race relations and the people who also feel that we need complex, nuanced justifications for torture? I know it's a threadjack, so please forgive.
This shouldn't be the type of thing we should be having complex, nuanced discussions about. Intellectually honest people don't need the law to define torture for them. If folks think torture is useful they should just say that. Enough of this bullshit, "Well, we only stuck pins under the nail on the pinky finger, so that's not really torture" business. If we're going to torture people, we should admit it openly, and go from there.
Then again, admitting the utility of torture would seem to take a bit of the wind out of the "We needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was evil" justification for the invasion of Iraq, which is something I'm not sure the current admin wants to do (despite the fact that the current admin has very little credibility left anyway). It's difficult to convincingly complain about your enemies' rape rooms when you essentially set up one of your own following your invasion.
|