McCain Won't Compromise on Torture BanRuns the headline.
McCain, who was tortured by the Vietnamese has taken a strong stand against torture.
One of his objections is that evidence obtained through torture is unreliable. And I agree with him in that respect. To end pain and humiliation one might very well say anything (which is why I have a problem with one defendant coping a plea by giving evidence against another. ) I am less concerned with his worries about te reputation of the USA. I don't think we should use a criterion of "what someone else will think of us" but what G-d will think of us. But that is me.
The trouble is, at least for me, how do we define "cruel and inhumane"? And what means are left to extract important, perhaps life-saving information? What is considered torture and what is considered humiliation is a somewhat subjective; there are areas where most of us would consider the action "torture" but there are iffy areas in between.
I am really asking; I don't have the answers. What do you all think? Beyond the obvious---what, iyho, would constitute torture? Humiliation?
Posted by Rachel Ann at December 5, 2005 07:49 AM | TrackBackHumiliation may be a form of torture, but it is certainly not "cruel and inhuman".
Posted by: Mark at December 6, 2005 01:50 AM
Mark, why don't you think humiliation could qualify as cruel and inhuman? And do you feel it could be useful?
Posted by: Rachel Ann at December 6, 2005 06:01 PM