Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.
|
C'mon, do you think Americans (or anyone else) don't abuse spouses, beat children, or kick puppies? People is people, but I digress.
Except for Dick Cheney and UG, I think most Americans don't approve of torturing detainees, foreign or domestic. But the wrinkle is, what constitutes torture? The Department of Justice, Army Field Manual and Geneva Convention, outlines are open to interpretation, especially when it applies to
mental torture.
For example;
Quote:
|
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
|
Certainly the threat of rooming with Horny Bubba would cause me mental anguish, but it's not torture because it's "incidental to lawful sanctions".
Except where the interrogator,(or just a guard), is following a script, it remains up to the individuals sense of right/wrong. That becomes pretty subjective, especially in retrospect.
Some people would say puting milk in their tea, is torture.
