Comments on: Comment of the Day: A Welcome Voice from Liberty Papers Past

By: indygirl

indygirl — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:33:50 +0000

This discussion brings to mind another question – the debate over whether or not a specific act can be defined as “torture” as it relates to interrogations regarding terrorism – in the U.S. people are terrorized everyday by fellow citizens – rape, murder and other violent crimes -therefore, how can these methods of “torture” to gain infomation be justified in regard to international terrorism but not acceptable in relation to domestic terrorism? Can’t remember his name but the guy that murdered the abortion doctor claimed there will be more violent acts, but use of “torture” to gain more info from him would be out of the question, but would be acceptable if he were not a U.S. citizen? Hope I’m making sense here, very tired at the moment, any thoughts on this?

By: tarran

tarran — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:02:33 +0000

Chris’ comments were largely in response to my comment, and I disagree that I am redefining the definition of torture, so much as defending it from the attempts of others to so redefine it very narrowly in order to permit the U.S. government to torture people while pretending that they are not torturing people.

The people who wish to redefine it more narrowly are arguing that anything that does not do permanent damage is not torture. under such a rubric, anally raping someone with sufficient amoutn of lubricant wouldn’t be torture, but pulling out their fingernails would be. Performing mock executions on a prisoner would not be torture but dislocating a pinkie finger would be.

My argument was that the redefiners were, even by their own narrowly defined definition, failing to absolve the U.S. There may be no obvious macroscopic scar or physical deformity left after making a guy watch someone beat his children bloody and his wife get raped, yet it does do permanent, debilitating harm.

I don’t have a rigorous, systematic definition of torture. To me, it’s like obscenity; I can’t define it, but know it when I see it. The term is derived from the same root are “Torment”.

Incidentally, the notion that somehting isn’t torture if it can happen to people naturally doesn’t really wash – all of us will agree that shattering someone’s kneecaps is torture. Yet, in a car accident, I could easily have my knee-caps shattered.

I do, however, agree with what seems to be the general consensus; regardless of whether these “enhanced interrogation techniques” (those Nazis had sure had a gift for language) meet the definition of torture, they are counterproductive and every level:
1) they strengthen the enemy’s will to fight.
2) they generate inaccurate information.

By: John222

John222 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:27:55 +0000

Excellent points. Language is indeed important to this discussion. Changing definitions or uses of words is becoming rather common place, what’s really odd is that most people don’t even seem to notice.

Another off topic, but related point I think would be worthy of discussion would be initial aggression as it relates to terrorism against the United States.