![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eIt made me feel physically sick to read this
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/how-victoria-gave-the-green-light-to-torture/2006/05/16/1147545322311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
I heard a discussion recently about the East German secret police -- the Stasi. Anna Funder has written a book about it, called Stasiland. In the course of the program it was noted that we are on a course towards a similar kind of police state.
How the hell have we leapfrogged the whole debate about use of torture at all, and gone straight to allowing it to be used to kill?
A moment's thought shows that torture is unreliable. If someone is fanatical enough to hang onto information so that someone feels torture is needed, then that person is just as likely to give out misleading information, but worse, torture can be used to force "confessions" from innocent people because at the time they will say anything to stop the pain. The only kind of person who is unlikely to give up information is one who is guilty.
The biggest problem of all is that torture never stops at the boundaries imposed. It always justifiably creeps further and further until it is used anytime police or security want it. Then it is used as a punitive measure against people who are seen as non-conformist or troublesome. That is an incredibly tiny step from our current position.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/how-victoria-gave-the-green-light-to-torture/2006/05/16/1147545322311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
I heard a discussion recently about the East German secret police -- the Stasi. Anna Funder has written a book about it, called Stasiland. In the course of the program it was noted that we are on a course towards a similar kind of police state.
How the hell have we leapfrogged the whole debate about use of torture at all, and gone straight to allowing it to be used to kill?
A moment's thought shows that torture is unreliable. If someone is fanatical enough to hang onto information so that someone feels torture is needed, then that person is just as likely to give out misleading information, but worse, torture can be used to force "confessions" from innocent people because at the time they will say anything to stop the pain. The only kind of person who is unlikely to give up information is one who is guilty.
The biggest problem of all is that torture never stops at the boundaries imposed. It always justifiably creeps further and further until it is used anytime police or security want it. Then it is used as a punitive measure against people who are seen as non-conformist or troublesome. That is an incredibly tiny step from our current position.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 12:32 am (UTC)We had the debate about torture a year ago.
Maybe you blinked and missed it? Or perhaps it was drowned out in all that sedition talk. Or maybe you were too busy counting your tax cuts?
/sarcasm.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 02:33 am (UTC)It was briefly raised by a few people outside government, but I don't remember anybody in police, security, or government actually saying anything about it.
At that time I had this odd feeling that the people in government thought the fictional show 24 was reality TV, and they believed it obvious that trusted goodies like Jack Bauer should be able to torture people to save lives in a nick of time. The problem of course is that nobody knows who is really a goodie when everybody believes they are doing the right thing. The "terrorists" believe they are doing the right thing, sacrificing a few lives for the greater good.
We already have concentration camps, and imprisonment without charges or legal representation. In condoning torture and murder, how is our government any different from those they purport to fight against?
Will assassination be next?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 03:04 am (UTC)The Americans re-instated it as an option in September 2001 and Israel has used it as a legitimate option for, what, 50 years?
It probably will worm its way in somewhere along the line, probably through one of our allies doing it and us refusing to condemn it.