SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (99828)2/11/2005 2:02:35 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793697
 
Chrenkoff - One man's torture is another man's S&M dungeon

Questions continue to be raised about "sexually provocative" interrogation tactics used by female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. This from the "Washington Post" (hat tip: Best of the Web ):

"Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. 'They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them,' said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. 'What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site -- it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs'."

Which begs the question - do "detainee lawyers" and the Centre for Constitutional Rights think that artists dunking a crucifix in urine constitutes an unacceptable torture for Christians. And if so, who can the Christians sue?

This is all such a tricky area, isn't it? If exploiting religious beliefs to break down detainees is a no-no (and I'm not arguing that it should or shouldn't be), are all the other types of beliefs, for example political or ethical beliefs, also off-limits? Would smearing vegetarians with meat be torture? Now, to some people, being locked up in the same room with a Republican, particularly a talkative one who makes fun of your deeply cherished ideals (think Rush Limbaugh or Mark Steyn or James Taranto), would be torture, too. Is this a purely subjective judgment of the torturee or are there some objective components in making the call?



To: LindyBill who wrote (99828)2/11/2005 3:48:13 AM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793697
 
Wonder if Kurtz will respond to your note? <ggg> He deserves it!



To: LindyBill who wrote (99828)2/11/2005 8:45:48 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793697
 
We had "fisks," now we have "kurtzes."

Ah, a new word. "Kurtz" apparently means "declining to join the lynch mob." How useful. We can apply it, too, to those who eschewed the fury over Jeff Gannon.

Hopefully, now that we have a word for it, we will see much more of it in the future...