Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Before some of you go into apoplectic Liberal seizures, I want to announce that I'm not here to continue or rehash my 'CIA water boarding is morally permissible' debate. My focus here is to analyze a particular definition of torture often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding. I should probably repeat myself here. I am only interested in fully understanding this definition, because I have started to think that there's plenty being taken for granted and not understood by both Liberals and Conservatives who invoke this definition. So, away we go.
United Nations Convention Against Torture wrote:Article 1.1 of the Convention defines torture as:

For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
Let's begin by listing a definition that falls short of what the UN has in mind, so that as we approach the UN definition by adding further qualifying clauses, we might see why the UN definition adds the particular criteria it does. Let's refer to these definitions that fall short as "Preliminary Definitions."

Preliminary Definition #1 (PD1): Torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person.

Note that this definition leaves out the particular 'purpose' behind intentionally inflicting this severe pain and suffering. Why is PD1 unsatisfactory? Well, because it would be defeated by any intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering which we would not deem torture. In other words: a counter-example. If we could provide one example in which intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering was not considered an act of torture, then PD1 would be false. And it's easy enough to give such examples, particularly in cases of self-defense, where we might find it necessary to shove an attacker into a giant vat of acid as the only means of saving our lives. We can simply stipulate that we know dying by acid is severely painful, so we have intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering upon our attacker. Do we think that we have tortured him? Clearly not. So, PD1 fails easily.

Now we can appreciate why the UN didn't use a definition like PD1.

Preliminary Definition #2 (PD2): Torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purpose of obtaining information.

Let's note that we've narrowed our scope from 'acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering', simpliciter, to 'acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering for the purpose of obtaining information'. What is gained by narrowing the scope? This definition escapes the criticism against PD1. In our first self-defense example we noted that we shoved the attacker into a giant vat of acid, but that's clearly not an act of trying to obtain information, so our first objection doesn't apply now. Well, at least that's the apparent rationale. In other words, we haven't found a counter-example because PD2 applies only to cases of trying to obtain information, not your typical self-defense scenarios (as described previously). I think there's something incoherent with this rationale, but I will leave it as is for now. We will return to this paragraph and this rationale much later in this thread. Still, given this rationale, which we'll assume is coherent for now, there are objections we can make.

There are two objections I want to make, but I will only pursue the second one because it's the one pertinent to my inquiry. By the way, when I say "objections", I mean objections to the coherency of the UN definition. I think something is amiss with this definition, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. That's what I'm trying to do here with these objections. I'm not trying to undermine the definition just yet (or maybe ever); I first want to fully understand it and everything presupposed by it. That's my purpose: to fully understand it.

First objection: the UN definition is ad hoc. The UN simply states but doesn't not explain why certain acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering are torture if done for the purpose of trying to obtain information but not torture if done in typical self-defense scenarios (as described previously). In other words, if two similar acts are acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering, but one is torture because it's done in order to obtain information and the other is not torture because it's done in a typical self-defense scenario, then what explains this seemingly ad hoc designation of 'torture' in the former case but 'not torture' in the latter? Frankly, no explanation is given. So, my objection is that the UN has simply given us an ad hoc definition of torture. But, let me repeat, this is not an argument I want to pursue, and not because I think there's a good response to it -- but it's outside the scope of my inquiry in this thread. So, onto the Second objection.

Second objection: There doesn't seem to be anything immoral or torturous about trying to obtain information. We do it all the time: "Hi. What's your name?" "Professor, when is the exam?" "Do you speak English?" "Where are you planning to attack us next?" -- all of these polite questions are for the purpose of obtaining information. So, the idea of trying to obtain information seems perfectly benign. So, my question is: How does adding this stipulation, the purpose stipulation of 'trying to obtain information', make an act (one of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering) an act of torture if the act itself cannot be deemed an act of torture on its own terms?

To get a grip on what I'm getting at, consider this scenario. I corner you against the wall and kiss your forehead. Basically, I kiss your forehead without consent. Have I tortured you? If you're having trouble, think of whether I could be tried in court for torture. Pretty ridiculous, right? Right. I think reasonable people will say that this isn't enough to constitute torture. I mean, even the UN seems to think severe pain or suffering is required. Notice that I didn't mention the reason for kissing your forehead. We're just looking at the act of my kissing your forehead without your consent, and we're asking whether this constitutes torture. Clearly not. Now let's say that I somehow lure you to my dungeon and restrain you while I slowly cut off your fingers. Am I torturing you? I think most reasonable people would say yes. Why is this torture? Well, obviously I'm causing you severe pain without your consent. So the difference in these two examples is the 'level of pain or suffering' that I caused you.

Question 1: If you give me your consent to cause you severe pain, am I torturing you?

If I can indeed torture you despite your given consent, then the consent doesn't seem to play a role in making some act an act of torture. It would then seem to be just the severity of the act.

Question 2: What if I said this: "I'm not torturing you because I'm not doing it in order to get information from you"? Would this matter in whether the act was an act of torture or not? And I ask this because the UN definition would require the act to be one of trying to get information. (Yes, I know they have other criteria, but I want to just focus on the 'obtaining information' stipulation for now. Again, I'm trying to understand their conception of torture. I'm not here arguing for or against CIA water boarding.)

Question 3: What if I said this: "I'm not torturing you because I'm doing it for scientific research"? Would this matter in whether the act was an act of torture or not? I've chosen this reason as a seemingly utilitarian reason, not one of malice or immorality.

Question 4: What if I said this: "I'm not torturing you because you have information about a terrorist plot"? Would this matter in whether the act was an act of torture or not? Now, I know some of you will jump on this to defend your thesis that CIA water boarding is torture, but I'm not interested in your off-topic answers. I want to know whether the purpose matters. I've chosen a variety of different purposes to see if perhaps some purposes can or do change an act of 'non-torture' to 'torture', or vice versa, from torture to non-torture.

Well, that's all for now. I have more to say, but it's late and perhaps I've already given you too much to think about.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

I want to return to the crux of my OP, where I say this:
So, my question is: How does adding this stipulation, the purpose stipulation of 'trying to obtain information', make an act (one of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering) an act of torture if the act itself cannot be deemed an act of torture on its own terms?
I think we can glean the UN's rationale. There are special circumstances in which the act of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering upon someone is not an act of torture. But under many circumstances such an act would be an act of torture. Whatever the conditions inherent in the 'special circumstances' that make an otherwise torturous act a non-torturous act, those conditions are probably strong (they somehow justify the act) and rare (not many circumstances involve these 'justifying conditions'). Again, this is likely not the best phrasing, but I'm working through this as I type. So, while the UN might recognize these special cases, they want to draw a clear line between cases in which the act is torture and cases in which the act isn't torture. If you're trying to save your own life from an attacker (provided he has illegally attacked you and your life is being threatened, etc.), then performing such an act is not torture. But, as the UN reasons, if the act is performed under less dramatic or imminent or life-or-death conditions (again, I'm searching for a good way to say this), then the act is torture.

So the UN decided to select certain purposes which would not seem to justify such an act. One such purpose was 'obtaining information,' which sounds like a perfectly non-life-or-death purpose, almost like an insignificant goal as compared to taking someone's life or causing him severe pain or suffering. We can think of the simple question: Did you cause him severe pain simply because you wanted to obtain information? This almost sounds evil to answer in the affirmative. And that's precisely why the UN phrases its definition the way it does. My claim is that this is not just dishonest but hides something important: the true purpose.

It is very rare that we seek information for its own sake. We typically have a purpose, a reason, for seeking this information. So, for example, it would be dishonest and wrong to say that my purpose in seeking my girlfriend's email password was just to know the password. So, why am I searching through her diary? Is it to obtain information? Or, is it to obtain information so that I can read her email? If you say it's just to obtain information, then you have in mind a situation in which I just want to know the particular password she decided to go with. That's silly and naive. The second purpose is the true purpose, the only purpose that explains why I'm searching through her diary. I want to obtain this information for the purpose of reading her email.

What the UN has done is say that just trying to obtain information is the purpose. But if they can get away with that, then the real purpose of why you're seeking this information never matters, because any purpose which involves first obtaining information will be deemed a case in which intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone is an act of torture. But that's plainly wrong. It's wrong because we saw that what makes such acts acts of torture or 'not torture' is the purpose, the real purpose, not the method (by obtaining information) which the UN calls 'a purpose.'

Okay, I'll stop here. I'm not entirely happy with how I've articulated some of the above, but it gets at what I'm thinking so I'll leave it for now.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Londoner »

Last time, you established to your own satisfaction that everyone else who writes here is inept, dishonest, stupid etc. By contrast, you had proved you were right about everything.

So why are you back?
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

I was very much unimpressed with the comments and those who commented on my CIA water boarding thread. Nevertheless, I gained a deeper understanding of the topic in addressing some of the carping and muddled objections. This thread topic is an example of what I gained from the CIA water boarding discussion. So, while I had to work extremely hard in that thread for so very little in return, it wasn't completely fruitless.

Defending your opinions is the best way to gain in understanding, so I always hope for challengers and good ones at that. I am not married to my opinions, so if they are defeated, then good for me. I can't see how abandoning opinions for better supported ones is a loss for me. It's only a loss to people whose self-esteem or egos are tied to their opinions, while my ego is so huge that it can suffer innumerable defeats without causing negligible damage. And, mind you, those who commented aren't even a small minority of all the members on this forum. Plus, this debate is less threatening than the CIA water boarding debate to those who believe torture is morally impermissible, so maybe it'll trigger less deranged and dishonest responses.

This thread is completely conceptual. It's about how we're to understand the UN definition of torture if it is to make sense. How do the parts work? What is taken for granted in such a definition? What philosophical work are some of the concepts doing?

My instincts tell me that the UN's definition is too inclusive. I want to dissect it conceptually to understand how (or if) it fails. In philosophy, we call this "unpacking an argument." There's a lot in that definition which we aren't grasping. It takes some conceptual work to fully understand what we're accepting when we accept it. That's what I want to do in this thread. I want to unpack this definition to understand what we're philosophically accepting if we accept the definition. My suspicion is that it will prove philosophically unsatisfactory and we'll reject it. But, I can't make any claims just yet, so I will continue this project even if for my own benefit because I firmly believe that the only thing worth calling 'thinking' is done in writing.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

henry quirk wrote:Allow me, then, to unimpress you further: torture happens and all the resolutions, all the debates, all the ethical/moral handwringings, don't mean diddly.
Agreed, but irrelevant to this thread.
henry quirk wrote:Torture happens: for pleasure, for information, for just about any damn reason a body can cobble together.
Agreed, but irrelevant to this thread.
henry quirk wrote:Why does torture happen?

Cuz it works, there's profit to be had hurting people, information is given up, pleasure is derived, etc.
Agreed, but irrelevant to this thread.
henry quirk wrote:The question isn't 'should we torture?' but 'how the hell can I best avoid being tortured?'
Well, no, that's not the question of this thread at all. But I'm glad we can agree on some fundamental, albeit irrelevant stuff.

And the other comments, by vegetariantaxidermy and Philosophy Explorer, were to this final irrelevant question above, so they are irrelevant too.

Let me say again: this thread is about trying to understand conceptually what the UN definition of torture is. That's it. Is this conception -- once we unpack everything -- coherent? Only after we fully understand the conception, can we decide if we agree with it or if we need to tinker with the definition. Strictly speaking, this isn't a debate about the morality of torture, although morality will be talked about. This is a debate about one entity's specific conception of torture.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re:

Post by Skip »

henry quirk wrote: The question isn't 'should we torture?'
In philosophy, it is.

In politics,
but 'how the hell can I best avoid being tortured?'
By making it illegal in all situations, everywhere, stopping it, whenever and wherever possible and incarcerating perpetrators, regardless of who is the intended victim and who is the perpetrator in all cases, you can reduce the number of perpetrators at large and your chances of becoming a victim.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Apparently my only option is just to write for myself. Onward...

In trying to understand the UN's CONCEPTION OF TORTURE, I have not found it easy to pinpoint where it fails and why it fails. At this point, I lean strongly towards it failing, but I'll reserve final judgment until I can unpack this convoluted definition.

A not-so-little side note. In my experience in studying philosophy and talking a lot of philosophy and writing a ton of philosophy papers, I have noted that which distinguishes those who do good work and those who do average to poor work. Good philosophers have some natural talent. It's not exactly like the natural talent to play a musical instrument at a high level, but at some point (maybe early teens) if you don't have a talent for philosophy, you will likely never be very good at it. This talent allows you to detect things that are amiss with an argument or with a conception, things that most people simply never notice, and some have a hard time noticing even if you spell it out for them (ahem, like in this thread). If you never notice any problems, haven't even an inkling that something is philosophically amiss, then you will never ask the questions that must be asked if you're going to do philosophy well. Knowing which questions to ask also separates good philosophers from those less able. That's really the difference between good philosophers and pretenders: good philosophers think to ask questions which most others do not. Now, once those questions get asked, there are many philosophers who can do good work in answering those questions, but almost always it takes a good philosopher to ask those questions, and for obvious reasons it's usually they that come up with the best answers. What I'm doing in this thread is asking the questions that nobody else here would ever think to ask, or likely would bother to ask if they could ever think of them. I will work through answering those questions, and in the end I will have a better grasp of the UN's conception of torture than anyone here (I think it's safe to say). Now back to philosophy...

My instincts (which can be right or wrong) tell me that something is amiss in labeling "to obtain information" as a purpose behind any action which would involve intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone. Whose purpose is it just to obtain information? This to me looks like a cheat to broaden the scope of acts that could be labelled 'torture'. In almost all cases, the purpose of interrogations isn't 'to obtain information' but 'to thwart a crime in progress'. That's one point to consider further in trying to understand the UN's conception of torture.

A second consideration is the 'intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering' clause. While we all agree that brushing someone's nose with a feather once might irritate a little, it falls far short of 'torture'. This is why the UN adds the clause about "severe pain or suffering." What most wrongly believe is that anything that is at minimum severe pain or suffering will count as torture. But that's clearly wrong. The 'severe pain or suffering' clauses is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement, of sorts), not a sufficient condition. In other words, if you've intentionally inflicted severe pain on someone, it does not follow that you have tortured him. That's plain as day from the various examples already provided in which we -- for example -- shove someone into a giant vat of acid (in a self-defense scenario). We don't think we are torturing him in doing so, although we are clearly causing him severe pain. So, just showing that someone has intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering on someone is not enough to say his act is an act of torture. That's a point most of you don't understand, but it's important. This takes us to a question: If the severity of the act (as causing severe pain or suffering) is only a necessary condition, what other necessary or sufficient condition is needed to make an act an act of torture?

The UN's answer would apparently be: 'You are causing this severe pain in order to obtain information.' And while that seems coherent, a deeper look will reveal that something is terribly amiss with that answer.

Well, that's it for today. Kinda short by my standards lately, but I think this post clears up exactly what I'm doing in this thread, and how philosophy should be done, frankly. Until next time...
Last edited by fiveredapples on Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:27 am, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Back to the actual topic. Last I wrote I left off with this:
The UN's answer would apparently be: 'You are causing this severe pain in order to obtain information.' And while that seems coherent, a deeper look will reveal that something is terribly amiss with that answer.
So what is amiss with this answer by the UN? Let's be clear at what the answer is saying. It's saying that while an act of intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone -- which we'll refer to as Act X -- meets the minimum requirement (on the pain front) to be a possible act of torture, what in fact takes us into the realm of torture is if Act X is done for the purpose of obtaining information. In other words, another necessary condition is the purpose of obtaining information. That, to me, sounds very odd.

I mean, I can understand the 'severe pain' condition. We need for the pain caused to reach a certain level before we're inclined to call it torture, so "severe pain" seems vague but useful enough as a condition. I think that when we think of torture, we often think of it done in interrogations, but obviously it can be done in other contexts. Let's now consider the other conditions the UN gives in its definition. So again I give the definition below:

Article 1.1 of the Convention defines torture as:
For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
So, according to the UN, intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone constitutes torture when done for any of the following purposes:

1) obtaining information
2) obtaining a confession
3) punishment
4) intimidation
5) coercion
6) discrimination

Now, let me ask this question: What if a crazy person drugged you, took you to his dungeon, and began bleeding you because he thought he was helping you? If 'bleeding you' doesn't sound severely painful, then pick whatever act you wish. Nothing rides on it being bleeding. So you're tied up in his dungeon getting cut in various places and you're losing blood by the quarts. So, again, supposing this is severely painful, are you being tortured? I think we would all answer yes, even though the guy is trying to help us. He thinks he's saving us from some illness. He's not doing it for any of the six purposes above, yet we think the act is an act of torture.

So why do we think this is an act of torture if the guy is trying to help us? I think it's because we have not given our consent. Back in the old days, bleeding was a common medical practice, and while those patients suffered a great deal (let's say they suffered severe pain), they were not being tortured. They didn't think so, their doctors didn't think so, nor did the general public think so. So I think the take-away is that all these 'purposes' the UN gives are a charade. They do not matter. What makes Act X an act of torture seems to be that the person has not given his consent to having this severe pain inflicted on him.

Now, someone might argue thus: "The victim is not giving his consent when he is, for example, sleep deprived and punched around a bit, so he is being tortured."

And my response is that you can temporarily forfeit your right to consent or not consent, just like you can temporarily forfeit your right not to be killed or harmed if you break into my home and point a gun at my face. So the reason why we think we're not torturing the terrorist who has planted dozens of nuclear bombs throughout the world is because he has forfeited his right to consent or not consent to the pain we might need to cause him so he will divulge the locations of those bombs. Now, I admit, at some point we might start doing some Medieval stuff to the guy such that we will likely consider it torture no matter whether he has forfeited his right to consent or not consent. But that would only serve to argue that torture is sometimes morally permissible, because I think we're morally permitted to escalate the severity of the act if he keeps holding out.

So, there are a couple of things to keep track of. One, there seems to be an argument for the moral permissibility of torture (provided we're right that an act can be torture even when the person has forfeited his right to consent or not consent to such an act). Two, the UN's purpose clause now seems like a giant smoke screen to hide the fact that the purpose doesn't seem to matter when the person has forfeited his right to consent or not consent.

Such forfeiture seems to happen in certain child kidnapping scenarios and ticking time bomb scenarios, most notably, which explains why we don't think of Act X as torture when performed in those scenarios. So, the take-away?

I think the UN's definition fails because it needs another clause: "unless the subject has forfeited -- by some illegal or immoral act -- his right to consent or not consent to such treatment." Without this clause, the UN's definition only serves to deceive people about our own conception of torture. The UN's definition tries to broaden which acts will be deemed torture by leaving out just that condition which makes all the difference. That's why the purpose clause is so dishonest. It's also why of all the purposes they list, "obtain information" is the most out of place, for it doesn't seem to be in any way immoral or malignant. But by including this specific purpose, the UN covers all cases of interrogation that cause severe pain or suffering, even cases in which the subject has forfeited his right to consent or not consent, which flies in the face of common sense and our very own conception of torture.

Okay, I need to stop. I've kinda reached the end, but I have to review it later, when I'm not sleepy, and see what we need to clean up or re-think.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Skip »

For the purpose of this Convention,
means: these are the areas under legal consideration at this convention:
1) obtaining information
2) obtaining a confession
3) punishment
4) intimidation
5) coercion
6) discrimination
not that
1. this contains all possible definitions of torture
or
2. we approve of or condone torture for any purpose not listed here
or
3. the subject is hereby exhausted

In fact, the whole thread is based on poor reading skill.
The dishonest reasoning and crappy morals are filling and icing.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"Let me say again: this thread is about trying to understand conceptually what the UN definition of torture is."

My point: it doesn't matter what the U.N.'s defintion of torture is.

Every nation, every organization, with a Black Site is doin' what they do without any concern for what you or I or the U.N. thinks, or how any of us define 'torture', or the (im)morality of torture.

Again: torture (shit a damned sight more terrifying than having water dribbled on your face) is happening now and it's bein' done by folks who effectively stand outside 'law', folks who don't give a flip about U.N., U.S., or E.U. resolutions.

'Is it right? Is is legal? How to define it?': meaningless on a practical level.

However, you can count the number of angels waltzin' on pinheads, if you like...your time is yours to waste as you like.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Skip »

From the UN's pov, it matters, because some of those bad-asses may eventually end up in an international court, and have to be tried according to a set, documented legal standard.
For the rest of us, the only question is: Do we support these practices by our own governments?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

How many folks have been arrested, been tried, been convicted, for torturing?

As for public support: as meaningless to those who torture as are all those public declarations, resolutions, and laws.

A Black Site is black (hidden, unregistered, undocumented) for a reason.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re:

Post by Skip »

henry quirk wrote:How many folks have been arrested, been tried, been convicted, for torturing?
A dozen or so. More, if you include torture in a broader indictment for genocide and war crimes.

The UN, understandably, is looking toward a future that's fairer and better than the past.
However idealistic and improbable a notion that may be, it is their mandate.
As for public support: as meaningless to those who torture as are all those public declarations, resolutions, and laws.
Resolutions and laws against would stand a better chance of reducing the incidents than a president who openly approves it.
A Black Site is black (hidden, unregistered, undocumented) for a reason.
And when the site is uncovered, so is the reason.

What's this all got to do with either the real philosophical question or the bogus one posed by fiveroadapples?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"What's this all got to do with either the real philosophical question or the bogus one(?)"

Nuthin' at all. Philosophy is for navel gazers; bogus-osity is just a distraction.


"their mandate"

Every age has its rainbow chasers.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Harbal »

fiveredapples wrote:"severe pain" seems vague
Not when you're experiencing it, it doesn't. Are you sure you're a genius? It's just that you sound more like an idiot.
Post Reply