![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasOkay.
So, I've been thinking about the United States' argument that "we don't torture people." And I've not posted it previously, because it pisses me off so much that I lose not only the thread of my logical argument, but actually language and coherent thought themselves.
But here's the basics of it:
The United States says that, while we use "coercive interrogation techniques", we don't TORTURE, because "torture" is causing a level of pain that is consistent with organ failure or death.
Now, there are a BUNCH of things I'd like to say about this definition. Like, for instance, remember how CWO Lewis Welshover Jr. just got convicted of only negligent homicide for torturing Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush to death -- HE didn't get convicted of torture. But, see, I'd say that, when someone dies when you're torturing them, that should be prima faciae evidence that said level of pain is consistent with, y'know, death, since, like, they DIED. So I don't get how that's not torture.
Oh, right -- there's a second part to the definition -- it's only torture if you're doing it for fun -- if it's inflicted for "it's own sake.". It's not torture if you're trying to get information. 'Course, since, at the time, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush had his head stuffed in a sleeping bag, it's hard to see how they were trying to get information from him.
Then, of course, I'd like to ask the folks who came up with that definition if, say, Sen. John McCain was ever tortured. I mean, the folks who did stuff to him weren't doing it for fun -- they were trying to get propaganda material. And HE didn't die. So the fact that he survived proves that it wasn't torture by the US's definition.
And what about all those medieval torturers in the stereotypical dark dungeon room? What about the Inquisition? They didn't use torture -- they were trying to get information -- whether someone had a pact with the Devil, whether someone was involved in subversive activities.
And professional torturers were people whose expertise was in causing pain WITHOUT death, or organ failure. A good torturer was one who could cause an unending amount of pain indefinitely, and which the victim could survive. Scarring was optional -- you could do it either way.
Note: by the United States definition, thumbscrews, flogging, the rack, the Iron Maiden, pressing with stones, branding with hot irons, bamboo splinters under the fingernails -- in fact, EVERY single kind of torture that has been used by barbaric people from the beginning of time doesn't count as torture.
We've managed to define torture out of existence.
In fact, the ONLY way you can be a torturer by the United States definition is if you are such a bad torturer that you kill people. As, say, Lewis Welshover Jr did.
He, of course, isn't a torturer, because an ACTUAL torturer would know enough to be able to AVOID killing his victim.
So, in order to be a torturer, you can't be a torturer. Because if you ARE a torturer, then you, definitionally aren't.
So, I've been thinking about the United States' argument that "we don't torture people." And I've not posted it previously, because it pisses me off so much that I lose not only the thread of my logical argument, but actually language and coherent thought themselves.
But here's the basics of it:
The United States says that, while we use "coercive interrogation techniques", we don't TORTURE, because "torture" is causing a level of pain that is consistent with organ failure or death.
Now, there are a BUNCH of things I'd like to say about this definition. Like, for instance, remember how CWO Lewis Welshover Jr. just got convicted of only negligent homicide for torturing Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush to death -- HE didn't get convicted of torture. But, see, I'd say that, when someone dies when you're torturing them, that should be prima faciae evidence that said level of pain is consistent with, y'know, death, since, like, they DIED. So I don't get how that's not torture.
Oh, right -- there's a second part to the definition -- it's only torture if you're doing it for fun -- if it's inflicted for "it's own sake.". It's not torture if you're trying to get information. 'Course, since, at the time, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush had his head stuffed in a sleeping bag, it's hard to see how they were trying to get information from him.
Then, of course, I'd like to ask the folks who came up with that definition if, say, Sen. John McCain was ever tortured. I mean, the folks who did stuff to him weren't doing it for fun -- they were trying to get propaganda material. And HE didn't die. So the fact that he survived proves that it wasn't torture by the US's definition.
And what about all those medieval torturers in the stereotypical dark dungeon room? What about the Inquisition? They didn't use torture -- they were trying to get information -- whether someone had a pact with the Devil, whether someone was involved in subversive activities.
And professional torturers were people whose expertise was in causing pain WITHOUT death, or organ failure. A good torturer was one who could cause an unending amount of pain indefinitely, and which the victim could survive. Scarring was optional -- you could do it either way.
Note: by the United States definition, thumbscrews, flogging, the rack, the Iron Maiden, pressing with stones, branding with hot irons, bamboo splinters under the fingernails -- in fact, EVERY single kind of torture that has been used by barbaric people from the beginning of time doesn't count as torture.
We've managed to define torture out of existence.
In fact, the ONLY way you can be a torturer by the United States definition is if you are such a bad torturer that you kill people. As, say, Lewis Welshover Jr did.
He, of course, isn't a torturer, because an ACTUAL torturer would know enough to be able to AVOID killing his victim.
So, in order to be a torturer, you can't be a torturer. Because if you ARE a torturer, then you, definitionally aren't.