Tortured Logic – A Simple Question.
Me and a fellow blogger have been having some good back and forth on the torture dilemma. The pro-torture side is stuck on the definition and procedural aspects of the interrogations. They’re stuck on semantics. Lawyers for the President redefined the techniques as non-torture, so presto, it’s not torture. Yet the same “enhanced methods” we are all talking about are the same ones we have agreed to prosecute other countries for. And just because the torture sessions are supervised, does not make them non-torture. It’s ironic, because those defending the use of torture by trying to call it something different, are the same ones who chastise “pro choice” advocates for trying to avoiding, through semantics, the fact that they are endorsing the killing of babies.
For those who condone harsh interrogations, I have a question. What if Iran decides to use the enhanced methods” on the American journalist Roxana Saberi? She is a convicted spy (at least she had a trial, even though it was for show), and the Iranians need to know who the other operatives are who are working with her to undermine the sovereignty of their country. By our own standards, they could justify it. What if Iran does the exact same procedures, in the same controlled manner, to the reporter? Would we have any right to complain and accuse Iran of torturing her?
Tortured Logic | Sonicfrog April 28, 2009 | 
Comments (0)