Defining Torture
Eric Puryear writes:
A fellow law student and I were debating the current issue of terrorist interrogation, and what practices would offend anti-torture aspects of the constitution and international treaties. The question came up as to whether any practice which compelled someone to speak against their will was torture (see the UN torture definition at the top of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture). From a psychological perspective, what are your thoughts sir?
The definition you reference essentially says that any intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering is torture. And I think most people would generally agree. The problem is that no one seems to agree on how severe that suffering has to be. Is waterboarding severe enough? How about being tazed? Is sleep deprivation torture? Loud music? Bad food? Public humiliation? It all depends who you ask. The folks who have an interest in the torturing will usually say no, and the folks who are being tortured will probably always say yes.
I think the thing to understand here is that everyone sees themselves as the good guys. The torturer is defending god or country or freedom, and so is the recipient of the torture. The situation is hopeless. I recommend against involvement.
David Godot