|
Edited on Fri May-22-09 12:43 PM by lyonspotter
The difference in context (between, say, US military training versus the interrogation of a known terrorist) reveals a great deal: the US military authority imposes waterboarding on our special forces who willingly sign up for such procedures as part of personal training and endurance trials, as preparation for and simulation of what might be imposed by the enemy, an enemy that chops off the heads of United States’ servicemen and women. If the Navy SEAL cannot endure treading water in the icy Atlantic for two hours while naked and posing as shark bait, s/he is taken out of the water and sent home, having failed the tribulation, but not pushed to the brink of death except in his own choosing. In all such training cases the ability to decline further pain is afforded. There is, of course, no such friendliness offered in the context of the imprisoned terrorist. We inflict this pain against his will and with the aggressive intent to coerce the confession of desired information – hopefully with the more water poured comes the eventual breaking of his will – and it is in such light, in such a context, that the entire debate must hinge. I'm not sympathetic in the slightest to the terrorists's asserted objectives, but I certainly don't believe we should violate law and become 'terroristic' ourselves by torturing prisoners.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(751 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
