You know, if you’d just read… “Is stress & duress”… suffering? Maybe". I said we COULD accept the UN Conventions definition of torture (although it is very vague & generalistic), and yes, it includes “mental”. What it doesn’t do is define “severe”. So, I deny that by a standard definition that “mental duress” is torture. However- I agree that if we loosen the definition to that of the UN Convention it can be. But then I deny that “stress & duress” is “severe suffering”.
So, you conced then that you were wrong when you argued that the infliction of mental suffering was not “torture,” am I right? Wouldn’t want you to weasel out of that one, like you keep trying to weasel out of addressing the physical forms of coercion the Post strory describes.
By the way, Alatriel missed another pertinent provision from the Convention earlier:
Oopsie, there’s another apparent violation of international law.
Finally, allow me to ask, kind Deth: How would you define “severe”? Just gonna assert that sleep deprivation ain’t it?
What’s “conced”? Read my posts. I said that the only non-disputable definition of torture includes severe physical pain. I then said that we COULD- for this debate- also include the UN defintion, which does include severe mental suffering. I also say IMHO that the US treatment does not arise to “severe”, and if it does, then you’ll see some convictions for such in the World Court. However- it doesn’t, which is why there isn’t even any indictments for same. In the worlds big picture, “stress & duress”- as unpleasant as it may be- is not even a “2” on the 1>10 scale of “torture” currently going on.
So to re-iterate: 1. Mental suffering isn’t normally included as “torture”. 2. If you do include it, what the US is doing isn’t severe enough to fit into the definition. 3. The other, more physical aspects alleged to are unconfirmed & doubtful.
It’s not important as to what I define as “severe”, however- what’s important is how actual convictions for such are brought down.
You only started weaseling out of that after Alatriel posted the Convention definition, which the U.S. has agreed to.
So, allow me to repeat: Do you now concede that “torture” includes the infliction of mental suffering, not only physical pain? Answer the question directly, please.
Yes, I see. Now, since as you point out that the Convention does not define “severe,” how 'bout you take a shot at it? Once again, please answer the question directly instead of dithering.
Bullshit. None of the details reported by the Post have been officially confirmed, even the sleep deprivation that you assume to be true. In the complete absence of an official denial of the physical acts described, or contradictory information from other sources, you are simply picking and choosing the details you wish to believe for the convenience of your argument.
By the way, your “Where are the indictments?” argument is fallacious in the extreme. Not only is there no mechanism for such indictments in the Convention, it assumes the existence of notice to a tribunal, an adequate time for investigation, the cooperation of the parties responsible for the torture, the identification of the torturers, etc., etc.
Query: Nobody has ever been indicted for the death of Jon Benet Ramsey. Does that mean she was not murdered?
FYI- the UN actualy does have a body for investigation- the Committee against Torture. Most recent press release covered incidents from 1999 and before.
Yes, but the Committee has no adjudicative authority. Its sole power is the ability to receive information and issue reports. There is no enforcement mechanism for the Covention Against Torture.
Newspeak. Call something inadmissible by a more admissible name in order to justify it. Or call something by a worse name in order to condemn it. So now “torture” is not torture but merely “discomfort”. It makes me sick. That is what communist governments did. They locked up prisoners in “mental institutions” and “reeducation camps”. Bullshit. This is a shame on the USA and decent people everywhere should be clamoring against it. A huge shame on a country that is supposed to stand for human dignity and human rights.
And handing them to other countriues is just as bad. The Spanish Inquisition never killed a single person. The Church could not do such things as they had a message of love. No, they just handed the sinner to the civil authorities even though they knew full well what the result was. Who would believe their hands were clean? Nobody. Who will believe the hands of the USA are clean? Nobody
Yes, I’ve noticed that exposing one’s mind to a completely unexpected perspective and at the same time absolutely refusing to consider that perspective often results in severe crankiness. Asking “What do you mean by that?” instead of saying “You suck because I don’t agree with what you said” does help alleviate the symptoms.
It feels damn fine, since I’m actively involved in trying to change what I don’t like about it. And there’s quite a large difference between “explain” and “excuse”. Offering an explanation for something doesn’t automatically entail my condoning it.
If the location of the ticking bomb about to blow up NYC is only known to the terrorist we just captured. His suffering is worth saving the lives of millions. etc, etc, etc.
I think it would be better to have a legal way that is out in the open to facilitate this. If this existed, they would not be granted often. A judge would only sign off on this under the most dire of circumstances. I would think it would be better than what some here seem to be suggesting of making it flat out illegal and then winkwink letting the authorities break the law if the situation seems to justify it.
Ask yourself how you would feel if you heard that US prisoners in the Middle East were being subject to the same treatment. That might help some people on this thread put the matter into perspective. Torture is wrong for what it is, not who is doing it.
I don’t want to live in a country where torture is legal under any circumstances. I don’t want to live in a country where a judge could exonerate someone in advance for torturing me. That’s a mighty dangerous power for anyone to have.
And I don’t think anyone here is talking about winking at illegal torture. Any authority in a “ticking bomb” scenario who feels strongly enough about the threat involved that he would break the law and engage in torture is still subject to prosecution for doing so.
That is the system we have now. It is the legal status quo. Torture is (and should be) illegal.
Olentzero, I am confused about your position on one thing. You seem to be an absolutist on the use of torture. Is that so? Putting legalities aside for a moment, are you saying that there is no conceivable set of circumstances under which torture might be morally justified?
What about the standard “ticking bomb” scenario? A nuclear bomb is planted in NYC and set to go off. You have in custody a person who knows where the bomb is located. They aren’t talking. What do you do? (Please answer; I am curious.)
While I agree that the situation described in the OP is abominable, I can imagine situations in which the moral choices are not as clear-cut.