3 ms·

>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.