Following on from my post regarding Rick Santorum and the debate as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture, I skidded over to an online dictionary to determine what, precisely it had to say regarding torture.
I chose the first definition (in order to be as even handed as possible).
Here it is:-
tor-tured, -tur·ing.
I chose the first definition (in order to be as even handed as possible).
Here it is:-
tor-tured, -tur·ing.
noun
1.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.
a method of inflicting such pain.
3.
Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.
extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.
a cause of severe pain or anguish.
I also read on a blog somewhere that, if you feel up to experiencing the treatment yourself, it cannot be classified as torture.
Hmm.....a few kind comments from Daniel and Christine highlighted something that was very much in my mind when I originally posted - the end never justifies the means. I agree.
But let's re-visit the meaning of torture.
The dictionary emphasizes words such as excruciating, pain, and, even, severe pain.
Does that apply to waterboarding?
I think that one might suffer anguish, even severe anguish but that is not the same as excruciating pain.
Excruciating pain is being stretched on a rack so that all of your joints start popping out of their sockets; it is having electrical clips attached to one's nether regions and the current being switched on.
It's having your fingernails detached by a pair of pliers in strong hands.
I am sorry if all of this seems like dancing on the head of a pin but we do need to be precise about what we are debating here.
I would not like to defend waterboarding per se but, I do think that I could cope with 4 or 5 minutes of it whereas, 4 or 5 seconds of racking or fingernail pulling would have me reaching for the guilty confession statement.
And now, the point I made in my original post; would it be acceptable to waterboard a terrorist if it saved 10,000 lives by obtaining information regarding the whereabouts of a nuclear device in the centre of London or Madrid or Toronto?
If it is not torture then one could go ahead and get the information but, if you think it is....then you are sending a lot of children, women and men to a premature and painful death.
What about 9/11?
What if it could have been avoided by questioning a suspect using this technique?
Would you have been up for it?
Isn't torture a very subjective issue? If you were a sensitive soul then someone shouting in your ear might have you begging for mercy. Or, maybe a hood over your head so that you were cut off from the outside world, or, maybe, being subjected to darkness over a long period of time (or, the reverse).
I am new to this post voting lark but thought that it might be worth trying.
So, here it is; given the scenario that you could glean information by means of waterboarding a known terrorist that would prevent a 9/11 or a 7/7 would you go ahead and do it or.......not?
Please see the vote counter in the sidebar.
Hmm.....a few kind comments from Daniel and Christine highlighted something that was very much in my mind when I originally posted - the end never justifies the means. I agree.
But let's re-visit the meaning of torture.
The dictionary emphasizes words such as excruciating, pain, and, even, severe pain.
Does that apply to waterboarding?
I think that one might suffer anguish, even severe anguish but that is not the same as excruciating pain.
Excruciating pain is being stretched on a rack so that all of your joints start popping out of their sockets; it is having electrical clips attached to one's nether regions and the current being switched on.
It's having your fingernails detached by a pair of pliers in strong hands.
I am sorry if all of this seems like dancing on the head of a pin but we do need to be precise about what we are debating here.
I would not like to defend waterboarding per se but, I do think that I could cope with 4 or 5 minutes of it whereas, 4 or 5 seconds of racking or fingernail pulling would have me reaching for the guilty confession statement.
And now, the point I made in my original post; would it be acceptable to waterboard a terrorist if it saved 10,000 lives by obtaining information regarding the whereabouts of a nuclear device in the centre of London or Madrid or Toronto?
If it is not torture then one could go ahead and get the information but, if you think it is....then you are sending a lot of children, women and men to a premature and painful death.
What about 9/11?
What if it could have been avoided by questioning a suspect using this technique?
Would you have been up for it?
Isn't torture a very subjective issue? If you were a sensitive soul then someone shouting in your ear might have you begging for mercy. Or, maybe a hood over your head so that you were cut off from the outside world, or, maybe, being subjected to darkness over a long period of time (or, the reverse).
I am new to this post voting lark but thought that it might be worth trying.
So, here it is; given the scenario that you could glean information by means of waterboarding a known terrorist that would prevent a 9/11 or a 7/7 would you go ahead and do it or.......not?
Please see the vote counter in the sidebar.
No comments:
Post a Comment