This is an example of the type of reprehensible behavior that workers in the US government are evidently thought to have engaged in, with impunity (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/). It's always a lie to imply that one could gain anything constructive by the use of torture, and anyone who claims to be accomplishing anything constructive through the use of torture is a fool and a liar. There's an inherent and extreme discrepancy in power that exists in a situation in which someone is torturing someone, and the people who are doing the torture are always going to be the ones who are going to decide if the person has or has not revealed some arbitrarily-defined volume of information or otherwise "given" something that the torturer deems to be "adequate." Of course, nothing will ever be adequate for someone who thinks torture is acceptable, and therein lies one of the lies that torturers like to try to use to deceive people with. What would be the content that a person being tortured could possibly provide, to a group of depraved torturers, and thereby extricate himself or herself from the torture? The person can never have any possibility of providing content that is adequate, and the person can never have any hope of extricating himself or herself from the situation. The definition of the adequacy of the contribution, provided by the desperate person being assaulted, is going to be redefined in an ongoing manner by the torturers. People assume that members of their government are going to exercise restraint and "only go so far" or only continue long enough to obtain the "desired" information. In fact, this can never be true, given that the underlying premise for the use of torture is that one does not know what information one desires. The abuses of prisoners in Iraq is an example of the way things go when people are dominating others and have drastically more power than the people whom they are dominating. Physical abuse is an inherently unrestrained approach, and people need to demand better behavior from people in their government.
For whatever reason, most people seem to believe the lie that the burden is on the person being tortured to "justify" his or her release from the physical and psychological assaults that the person being tortured is subjected to. Given that torturers never define explicitly and continually-redefine, in their own minds, the nature of the information that the person being tortured could provide, so as to win the abusers over and thereby extricate himself or herself from the abuse, there is never any possibility that the person being tortured could successfully "shoulder" the burden of proving his or her "worthiness" to be released from the abuse. In fact, nothing that a person being tortured can do or say will ever be capable of eliciting a response, merciful or other, from the person doing the torture. When a torturer assaults a person or temporarily stops assaulting a person, the assumption is that the torturer has done so in response to something the person has done or said. In fact, this is not the case and can never be the case, as long as the discrepancy in power is as large as it is in the context of torture. The fact that events occur in a given sequence, with one event occurring after another event has occurred, does not mean that a given event, such as the cessation or resumption of physical assaults within a given interval of time, has occurred as a consequence of (i.e., in response to) a previous event. If a bunch of low-life, street thugs are hitting someone with a baseball bat and then stop doing so and run off, no one would think that the street thugs' decision to run off, at that particular time, followed as a consequence of the "fifty-first" or "nth" plea, of the person being assaulted, for the thugs to stop the assault. The thugs simply made some arbitrary decision to stop, and no one would think that the burden is on a person being "mugged" or assaulted, on the street, to induce the criminals to stop assaulting him or her. A "judge" would laugh someone out of his or her kangaroo courtroom for arguing that the person being assaulted had failed to "pull himself/herself up by his/her own bootstraps" to an extent that would be sufficient to end the assault. A torturer is a weak bully who has decided to assault and dehumanize a person for some length of time, and there can be no real interaction of the torturer with the person being tortured. The physical assaults that torturers engage in are inherently one-sided. Torture is one-sided, irrational abuse and nothing else.
As long as this sort of behavior by people in CIA-style organizations or whatever other ridiculous organization continues, everything that's good about the US Constitution and the "expectations of human rights" that people have, in the US or in other countries is laid waste by this disgusting and inhuman behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment