4 ms·
I wouldn't use the word "torture", as there is a big distinction between the work psychiatrists at Guantanamo did and physical torture, even if the two overlapp
by andreyf 11y ago
I wouldn't use the word "torture", as there is a big distinction between the work psychiatrists at Guantanamo did and physical torture, even if the two overlapped (e.g. drown the person and then revive them for some psychological objective). I can imagine how the physical techniques used in "enhanced interrogation" might actually not be the most morally abhorrent ones.
- rhizome 11y agoIt's all part and parcel. Psychiatry and psychology are used continually; the physical stuff is intermittent.
- joesmo 11y agoI wasn't just referring to the psychiatrists, but to the authorities in general, and torture is the only word to describe what's happening there.
- greglindahl 11y agoThe definition of "torture" you're using isn't a good one. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Definitions The UN Convention Against Torture, the first example in that section, doesn't make the distinction you're making.
- andreyf 11y agoThanks for linking that. Perhaps I should have been more clear. While some of the things done to Guantanamo detainees qualify as "torture" under the UN definition (e.g. waterboarding), I can imagine a smart and determined psychiatrist working around that definition of torture and yet leaving a person in a psychological state which makes clear the immense immorality of their work. In other words, there exists a set of "enhanced interrogations" that are not technically torture (in the way that waterboarding is), but that are still morally abhorrent and would likely be prohibited if revealed.