05-01-2009, 06:34 PM
Hi,
There are a number of issues that bother me about the whole situation.
The first is totally unconnected with torture. It is "The deal . . . not to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel." That is stupid. If a nation wants weapons, they will find ways to extract weapon grade material no matter what they sign. And if they don't, they won't. The only things this proviso actually accomplishes is to reduce the energy that can be extracted from a quantity of ore by over a thousand-fold and increase the quantity of waste that needs to be dealt with by about the same factor.
Second issue is this specific case of torture. I don't think that this is torture in the sense of using pain to extract information. It seems to be nothing more than a thug using his position to brutalize someone he dislikes. The problem isn't torture, it is barbarity. It is simply a case of someone, because of his 'royal' connections getting away with something that should be a crime.
My third issue is with how torture is defined. Somewhere between slow flaying and harsh words there needs to be a line drawn. Only actions which cross that line should be considered torture. Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion. Not just discomfort. Lack of sleep, hunger, uncomfortable positions, and the like are not, in my opinion, torture. The modern bleeding heart coddling of scum often sickens me more than does the so called 'torture'.
Finally, there is the issue of torture itself. Personally, I'd favor it as punishment in many cases, such as slow death on a cross for spammers. Much more satisfying than banning. But there are two reasons why I think that a 'civilized' nation should not use torture. The first is that, as has often been pointed out, torture is a poor means of getting valid intelligence (but is actually very effective in getting information). But the most important reason is that in our war against savagery and barbarity, if we resort to torture we lose.
--Pete
There are a number of issues that bother me about the whole situation.
The first is totally unconnected with torture. It is "The deal . . . not to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel." That is stupid. If a nation wants weapons, they will find ways to extract weapon grade material no matter what they sign. And if they don't, they won't. The only things this proviso actually accomplishes is to reduce the energy that can be extracted from a quantity of ore by over a thousand-fold and increase the quantity of waste that needs to be dealt with by about the same factor.
Second issue is this specific case of torture. I don't think that this is torture in the sense of using pain to extract information. It seems to be nothing more than a thug using his position to brutalize someone he dislikes. The problem isn't torture, it is barbarity. It is simply a case of someone, because of his 'royal' connections getting away with something that should be a crime.
My third issue is with how torture is defined. Somewhere between slow flaying and harsh words there needs to be a line drawn. Only actions which cross that line should be considered torture. Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion. Not just discomfort. Lack of sleep, hunger, uncomfortable positions, and the like are not, in my opinion, torture. The modern bleeding heart coddling of scum often sickens me more than does the so called 'torture'.
Finally, there is the issue of torture itself. Personally, I'd favor it as punishment in many cases, such as slow death on a cross for spammers. Much more satisfying than banning. But there are two reasons why I think that a 'civilized' nation should not use torture. The first is that, as has often been pointed out, torture is a poor means of getting valid intelligence (but is actually very effective in getting information). But the most important reason is that in our war against savagery and barbarity, if we resort to torture we lose.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?