4 ms·

Please explain why treating a rich man like a common prisoner is torture. If it was torture, why Congress was so interested in the plight of this one man - eno

Please explain why treating a rich man like a common prisoner is torture. If it was torture, why Congress was so interested in the plight of this one man - enough to send General Washington to investigate the report - and not interested in the plight of everyone else in the prison in the same condition? Why is it okay to torture common people, but not rich "honorable" people?

hutzlibu 3y ago
"intentionally starved and subjected to freezing cold weather." "intentionally" implies intention somehow.
- eesmith 3y ago
  You are reading a quote from Wikipedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia's source for "intentionally starved" is https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/102/mode/2up?q=prison https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/102/m... : > He was not only deprived of the comforts, but the necessaries, of life, having been left more than twenty-four hours without food, and afterward afforded a very coarse and limited supply. The inhuman treatment which he received, so repugnant to the principles of civilized warfare, and so intolerable to an individual who had been accustomed to all the comforts and delicacies of life, depressed his spirits and seriously affected his health. Can you tell me if that was "intentionally starved" or "intentionally forced to eat the same rations as commoners"? Was it really a starvation diet, or was it food that a rich man wasn't used to eating and found unpalatable? You may well be right. By all accounts the Provost Prison was a horrible place, cruelly run by Provost Marshal Cunningham. At https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7829/7829-h/7829-h.htm#link2HCH0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7829/7829-h/7829-h.htm#link2... we can read how a pamphleteer describe him as a torturer: “His hatred of the Americans found vent in torture by searing irons and secret scourges to those who fell under the ban of his displeasure. The prisoners were crowded together so closely that many fell ill from partial asphyxiation, and starved to death for want of the food which he sold to enrich himself.” But even if you are right, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875273 I point out the other four imprisoned signatories to the Declaration of Independence were not treated like this. They certainly were not tortured.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    If the common prisoners were being rationed less than a meal per day then they were also being tortured. The source your quoting also calls it "inhuman" and "repugnant to the principles of civilized warfare." It's got nothing to do with how rich he was, only the fact that he was mistreated as a prisoner.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      The "principles of civilized warfare" treated officers different from non-officers. From "The law of nations", 1797 at https://archive.org/details/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog/page/462/mode/2up?q=officer https://archive.org/details/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog/page/4... > And what is more, by a custom which equally displays the honour and humanity of the Europeans, an officer, taken prisoner in war, is released on his parole, and enjoys the comfort of passing the time of his captivity in his own country, in the midst of his family ; and the party who have thus released him rest as perfectly sure of him as if they had him confined in irons. Technically speaking, I guess they don't have to be rich to be an officer, but all the ones I mentioned were rich.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        That's a fair point and I know we shouldn't the past by our own standards but, whatever the law was, I still stand by the assertion that all of those men were tortured.
        eesmith 3y ago
        I object to the original claim that "10% of [the signers of the Declaration of Independence] were captured and tortured during the war." As best as I can tell, Stockton is the only one who might fit that description, and the cited support for Wikipedia"s "five weeks of brutal treatment" doesn't help me understand how that specifically was torture, unless all "brutal treatment" is considered a form of torture. He lost his wealth, including his library and animals. That's surely an emotional shock that could easily lead to depression. I can understand how someone from privilege, with a lot to lose, may be more affected than a poor person with little to lose. I can also understand how that depression may make it harder to survive wretched circumstances. But I also don't want to give special dispensation to wealthy people just because they are used to a good life. All of the resources I've found about the event trace back to the biography I've been quoting. The book "His Sacred Honor, Judge Richard Stockton" surely has more, but I can't find a copy online. I am unable to answer your question about the book. I believe that if "civilized warfare" is a meaningful phrase in a 1770s US context then it's surely influenced by Vattel.
Modified3019 3y ago
>Why is it okay to torture common people It's not. That was his point.
- eesmith 3y ago
  My question was not about AlecSchueler's personal opinion of torture. The other 4 Declaration signers who were detained by the British were all rich men of high station - were given good treatment and considerable freedom under parole not given to normal prisoners or POWs. They certainly weren't tortured in any sense of the word. The description in the biography seems to be that because Richard Stockton was also a rich man of high station, he should have received similar treatment, but he was instead treated like a commoner, and his suffering was all the greater because he was used to the good life. In the biography were are supposed to sympathize with Stockton because of course rich people deserve to be treated better than plebes. That's the natural order of things. A bizjet traveler should never be forced to fly tourist class. Congress's interest in the case seems to be much more an apprehension that Stockton was being treated like a common prisoner than a concern that commoners are being horribly mistreated. They wanted Stockton treated like a POW, covered under different laws than a prisoner. If what was going on can be called torture, Congress don't seem to care. My question is, why not?
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    The dehumanisation of poorer people continues today so it's not hugely surprising that it was also a thing in the past.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
The fact that common prisoners were also being tortured doesn't make it any less torture

hutzlibu 3y ago

"intentionally starved and subjected to freezing cold weather." "intentionally" implies intention somehow.

eesmith 3y ago
You are reading a quote from Wikipedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia's source for "intentionally starved" is https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/102/mode/2up?q=prison https://archive.org/details/biographyofsign03sand/page/102/m... : > He was not only deprived of the comforts, but the necessaries, of life, having been left more than twenty-four hours without food, and afterward afforded a very coarse and limited supply. The inhuman treatment which he received, so repugnant to the principles of civilized warfare, and so intolerable to an individual who had been accustomed to all the comforts and delicacies of life, depressed his spirits and seriously affected his health. Can you tell me if that was "intentionally starved" or "intentionally forced to eat the same rations as commoners"? Was it really a starvation diet, or was it food that a rich man wasn't used to eating and found unpalatable? You may well be right. By all accounts the Provost Prison was a horrible place, cruelly run by Provost Marshal Cunningham. At https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7829/7829-h/7829-h.htm#link2HCH0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7829/7829-h/7829-h.htm#link2... we can read how a pamphleteer describe him as a torturer: “His hatred of the Americans found vent in torture by searing irons and secret scourges to those who fell under the ban of his displeasure. The prisoners were crowded together so closely that many fell ill from partial asphyxiation, and starved to death for want of the food which he sold to enrich himself.” But even if you are right, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36875273 I point out the other four imprisoned signatories to the Declaration of Independence were not treated like this. They certainly were not tortured.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  If the common prisoners were being rationed less than a meal per day then they were also being tortured. The source your quoting also calls it "inhuman" and "repugnant to the principles of civilized warfare." It's got nothing to do with how rich he was, only the fact that he was mistreated as a prisoner.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    The "principles of civilized warfare" treated officers different from non-officers. From "The law of nations", 1797 at https://archive.org/details/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog/page/462/mode/2up?q=officer https://archive.org/details/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog/page/4... > And what is more, by a custom which equally displays the honour and humanity of the Europeans, an officer, taken prisoner in war, is released on his parole, and enjoys the comfort of passing the time of his captivity in his own country, in the midst of his family ; and the party who have thus released him rest as perfectly sure of him as if they had him confined in irons. Technically speaking, I guess they don't have to be rich to be an officer, but all the ones I mentioned were rich.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      That's a fair point and I know we shouldn't the past by our own standards but, whatever the law was, I still stand by the assertion that all of those men were tortured.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        I object to the original claim that "10% of [the signers of the Declaration of Independence] were captured and tortured during the war." As best as I can tell, Stockton is the only one who might fit that description, and the cited support for Wikipedia"s "five weeks of brutal treatment" doesn't help me understand how that specifically was torture, unless all "brutal treatment" is considered a form of torture. He lost his wealth, including his library and animals. That's surely an emotional shock that could easily lead to depression. I can understand how someone from privilege, with a lot to lose, may be more affected than a poor person with little to lose. I can also understand how that depression may make it harder to survive wretched circumstances. But I also don't want to give special dispensation to wealthy people just because they are used to a good life. All of the resources I've found about the event trace back to the biography I've been quoting. The book "His Sacred Honor, Judge Richard Stockton" surely has more, but I can't find a copy online. I am unable to answer your question about the book. I believe that if "civilized warfare" is a meaningful phrase in a 1770s US context then it's surely influenced by Vattel.

Modified3019 3y ago

>Why is it okay to torture common people It's not. That was his point.

eesmith 3y ago
My question was not about AlecSchueler's personal opinion of torture. The other 4 Declaration signers who were detained by the British were all rich men of high station - were given good treatment and considerable freedom under parole not given to normal prisoners or POWs. They certainly weren't tortured in any sense of the word. The description in the biography seems to be that because Richard Stockton was also a rich man of high station, he should have received similar treatment, but he was instead treated like a commoner, and his suffering was all the greater because he was used to the good life. In the biography were are supposed to sympathize with Stockton because of course rich people deserve to be treated better than plebes. That's the natural order of things. A bizjet traveler should never be forced to fly tourist class. Congress's interest in the case seems to be much more an apprehension that Stockton was being treated like a common prisoner than a concern that commoners are being horribly mistreated. They wanted Stockton treated like a POW, covered under different laws than a prisoner. If what was going on can be called torture, Congress don't seem to care. My question is, why not?
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  The dehumanisation of poorer people continues today so it's not hugely surprising that it was also a thing in the past.

pcthrowaway 3y ago

The fact that common prisoners were also being tortured doesn't make it any less torture