Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: How can any politician justify the use of torture?

Bigthink — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:56:07 +0100

tobi, you are making generalizations about my argument which are irrelevant to the topic. I am referring to the use of torture during wartime. Do you consider methods utilized by interrogators that are anything short of organ failure or death to be acceptable? (the current U.S. administration does)

Also, I am not referring to "anything" being inflicted upon "anyone". I am speaking to the use of waterborading, sleep deprivation, etc. upon 'enemy combatants/insurgents' by the U.S. military (as sanctioned by the U.S. government). Please try to be more specific and not 'loose' with your own arguments.

Instead of keeping that focus you have taken my rational statement about a person willingly entering into a medical procedure and conflated it with the prison system.

You seem to be in favour of deflecting my points and misdirecting my arguments. Instead of merely dismissing my comments perhaps you should share some of your own opinions concerning the current U.S. policies that legislate torture against 'insurgents'.

Comment on: How can any politician justify the use of torture?

Bigthink — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:59:46 +0100

By your rather loose definitions, then anything inflicted upon anyone against their will is torture. So I take it that you dont agree with prison for convicted criminals either.I dont think that most convicts are there willingly!

Comment on: How can any politician justify the use of torture?

Bigthink — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:48:39 +0100

tobi, I absolutely agree with you that there a varying degrees of what can be considered to be torture. The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

My concern specifically about torture relates to the U.S. defining torture of 'insurgents' as anything short of organ failure or death. Under this definition, waterboarding is not considered torture, which I find to be ethically reprehensible.

In response to your point, I think it is irrelevant whether or not the mental damage is permanent or temporary in terms of defining whether or not the methods used were torture. Of course there can be varying degrees, but intentionally inflicting mental harm, permanent or temporary, is torture in my opinion.

Finally, I think there is a distinction between a painful medical procedure and torture because I would be the one to determine whether or not to undergo the procedure -- the decision would not be determined by a second party. Methods of torture, however, such as waterboarding or sleep deprivation are not entered into willingly because the person being tortured has no control over their situation.

Comment on: How can any politician justify the use of torture?

Bigthink — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:03:25 +0100

That would depend on a persons idea of torture, is it physical damage or merely an uncomfortable situation? Is it mental, is the damage permanent or temporary and does the situation even merit the consideration of the method.Would you put yourself through a painful medical procedure if it could save your own life? Just a thought.