Here Steven Deace defends torture in the abstract, with reference to an 1828 definition, some passages from the Bible, and some hypothetical scenarios. Notably absent is any consideration of the definition in the UN Convention Against Torture, which President Ronald Reagan signed in 1988. In other words, in a column evidently elicited by the recent controversy over the Senates torture report, Steve doesnt ask what the word torture means in American law--which bans torture. Here is the Conventions definition: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. — Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1 This definition certainly seems to fit the scenario from Arrow described by Steve in his column. There are three issues at stake in the current American debate. One is what torture is. The second is whether it should be illegal in the USA. The third is whether, while it remains illegal, federal officials have to follow the law against torture. In general, the people who are ignoring the second and third questions are the same people who decry President Obamas habit--his stated policy--of wantonly ignoring the immigration laws.
Posted on: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 14:20:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015