http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2005/02/the_pliers_jenk.html#comments
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2005/06/the_electrodes_.html#comments
Twice, I have offered for discussion the immensely difficult and dangerous decision to be taken by our masters as to exactly what differentiates torture from harsh treatment, and under what circumstances either should be used. Several readers contributed to what I thought was an intelligent conversation on the point, but of course, it was all very theoretical. Today, realism just blew away the theory!
As I write, the police have in custody a man linked to one of the bombers. I have no idea whether he is guilty, or whether he is totally innocent and merely happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, it does provide a scenario for a thought experiment. We can assume that these four bombers have some-one behind them supplying the explosives and suggesting the targets and the timings. Let us suppose it is the man in custody, and that the police have incontrovertible evidence that this man was not only running the group who have committed their atrocity, but is also running another group who are likely to take the same type of action.
With the pictures of the carnage fresh in our minds, how do we treat him?
Here's another example,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html
Torture or harsh treatment?
The man walked off the street voluntarily and was beaten to death.
Can we at least declare this torture? Can we at least say this is wrong? Can we at least stipulate that this incident hurts our cause rather than helps it?
Posted by: JackSc | Wednesday, 03 August 2005 at 22:35
Jack, nice to hear from you again. I have decided to incorporate your comment with a new post on the subject entitled: "Look out, Jenkins, here come the lawyers!"
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 04 August 2005 at 18:02