4 ms·

> "For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflict

by belval 5y ago

> "For the purposes 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." From "Definition of Torture Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A" The last sentence is the most important part, but the whole thing is relevant. Torture implies: - That a public official is consenting to the infliction of pain and suffering - The act is done to obtain information or a confession - The act is done outside of lawful sanction Words with legal meaning such as torture are often thrown around to get an emotional response, but it detracts from the horror that is actual torture. Waterboarding a 16 years old Afghan kid on expectation that is working with the Talibans is torture. Using force in the context of deportation is not torture.

colanderman 5y ago
It's a law school who filed the complaint, not some random schmuck. I'm predisposed to believe they filed it in good faith.
drekk 5y ago
Oh well if we've defined torture in a way that excludes this then I guess all the ethical implications disappear. It's not legally torture the same way hieleras on the border are not; you can maximize discomfort and pain for human beings in bondage but it's not torture because it's "lawful sanction". By this definition sterilizing people against their will isn't torture if you didn't do it to get info or at the behest of a politician. Maybe that's workable for our court system in the US that is responsible for the highest incarceration per capita in the world (more than the USSR at the height of gulag), but it's not workable for me. The cruelty is absolutely the point. We think torturing migrants will deter them the same way we assume harsh prison sentences deter crime. It doesn't. We are inflicting suffering on sentient beings for no good reason. Conventionally known as torture.
happytoexplain 5y ago
"Torture" is one of many words that, when people discuss it, they are speaking subjectively by default. It's totally reasonable to do - there is nothing wrong with having an opinion that somebody did something that does not meet some legal definition of the word, unless you are saying it in court. There are certainly words that are closer to the objective legal side of things by default in conversation ("copyright infringement"), but in general, using a word non-legally does not necessitate using it dishonestly, as you are implying ("to get an emotional response"). The legal argument is perfectly reasonable one to talk about, but it would be unreasonable not to recognize that both arguments are perfectly valid and interesting, despite potentially having opposite conclusions. Sorry, that was a long way of saying that legal != moral.
- belval 5y ago
  That's fair (it's unfortunate that this is a repost from yesterday as I think my wording was more nuanced before), but that's not what the article says, they specifically call out that they chartered flights for the CIA to move captive to an actual black site. This is the ambiguity that I called clickbait. The immigrants being deported were allegedly mistreated during transport, that's true. That mistreatment can we likened to torture (I disagree with that part but for the sake of the argument) but the author bundles actual "legally defined" torture with what you call "moral" torture and that's were it becomes clickbait. In a formal fashion: - Group A was transported by C to be D - Group B was transported by C to be E - The headline claims A was E which is wrong unless D = E My claim is that D (mistreatment of migrants likened to torture) isn't equivalent to E (actual black site torture).

by belval 5y ago

colanderman 5y ago

It's a law school who filed the complaint, not some random schmuck. I'm predisposed to believe they filed it in good faith.

drekk 5y ago

Oh well if we've defined torture in a way that excludes this then I guess all the ethical implications disappear. It's not legally torture the same way hieleras on the border are not; you can maximize discomfort and pain for human beings in bondage but it's not torture because it's "lawful sanction". By this definition sterilizing people against their will isn't torture if you didn't do it to get info or at the behest of a politician. Maybe that's workable for our court system in the US that is responsible for the highest incarceration per capita in the world (more than the USSR at the height of gulag), but it's not workable for me. The cruelty is absolutely the point. We think torturing migrants will deter them the same way we assume harsh prison sentences deter crime. It doesn't. We are inflicting suffering on sentient beings for no good reason. Conventionally known as torture.

happytoexplain 5y ago

"Torture" is one of many words that, when people discuss it, they are speaking subjectively by default. It's totally reasonable to do - there is nothing wrong with having an opinion that somebody did something that does not meet some legal definition of the word, unless you are saying it in court. There are certainly words that are closer to the objective legal side of things by default in conversation ("copyright infringement"), but in general, using a word non-legally does not necessitate using it dishonestly, as you are implying ("to get an emotional response"). The legal argument is perfectly reasonable one to talk about, but it would be unreasonable not to recognize that both arguments are perfectly valid and interesting, despite potentially having opposite conclusions. Sorry, that was a long way of saying that legal != moral.

belval 5y ago
That's fair (it's unfortunate that this is a repost from yesterday as I think my wording was more nuanced before), but that's not what the article says, they specifically call out that they chartered flights for the CIA to move captive to an actual black site. This is the ambiguity that I called clickbait. The immigrants being deported were allegedly mistreated during transport, that's true. That mistreatment can we likened to torture (I disagree with that part but for the sake of the argument) but the author bundles actual "legally defined" torture with what you call "moral" torture and that's were it becomes clickbait. In a formal fashion: - Group A was transported by C to be D - Group B was transported by C to be E - The headline claims A was E which is wrong unless D = E My claim is that D (mistreatment of migrants likened to torture) isn't equivalent to E (actual black site torture).