| Skybird |
05-17-12 07:41 PM |
Hm, yes, I never understood or forgave that torture was not called torture. I do not rule it out in all imaginable scenarios, though see it'S usefulness quite limited in opportunity. But to claim that implementing physical AGONY on the body (which is the purpose of waterboarding), and according cramps, physical reactions, psychological reactions, is not painful and is not torturing, is hypocrisy. If you use such means, then have the balls to call them by their proper names.
And of course waterboarding was/is effective just because it is so painful, and such terryfying to the mental soul. The body is made to believe that it dies. The psyche is reacting accordingly. There is severe physical pain and mental terror involved - that qualifies as torture, absolutely. If it were not so painful, why were some of the subjects then so cooperative afterwards? Were they thirsty and expressed their thankfulness for being given some water to drink?
In interrogation scenarios (torture also is used for non-discriminating terror against a population, and to break and destroy individuals) where the subject knows that it cannot escape but just can delay further torture when lying to avoid further aversive stimuli, torture can work and produce useful information. Point is the confessions must be immediately verifiable and checkable, and the subjkect must be convionced that it is so. Where that is not possible, I agree that the use of torture creates results that cannot be trusted.
In principle and for ethical reasons I oppose the use of torture as an ordinary tool of law-enforcement and crime research. Only where information refused by a suspect can end to major, serious, extraordinary damage for the community, or the victim(s) of a crime will suffer death or find miserable suffering, I must step back from principle rejection of torture - again for ethical reasons, for my ethics do not allow me to put the interest and well-being of a perpetrator above the interests of his victim(s) to stay alive and escape a gloomy fate.
Victim's interest goes first, perpetrator's interest is subordinate to that - that is my ethics. Their interests by far do not weigh equal. Not at all. Itr is immoral to see their interests as equal. And it is perverse to prioritize the interest of the perpetrator if the victim pays with its health or its life for that priority-setting.
I admit though that the problem lies in how to define criterions that make sure that no innocents gets tortured. That is a real dilemma, and I have no fail-safe solution to that. That possibility is a terrifying scenario, and that'S why I do not accept torture as a regular tool of law enforcement and policework, but being reserved for rare and extreme cases. Considering the individual case and not acting on the basis of routine patterns, is indispensable. It must be an exception from the rule, and not creepingly become a routine (like tazing, for example).
|
