undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandreyf10y ago0 comments

I wouldn't use the word "torture", as there is a big distinction between the work psychiatrists at Guantanamo did and physical torture, even if the two overlapped (e.g. drown the person and then revive them for some psychological objective). I can imagine how the physical techniques used in "enhanced interrogation" might actually not be the most morally abhorrent ones.

0 comments

greglindahl10y ago

The definition of "torture" you're using isn't a good one.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Definitions

The UN Convention Against Torture, the first example in that section, doesn't make the distinction you're making.

andreyfOP10y ago

Thanks for linking that. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

While some of the things done to Guantanamo detainees qualify as "torture" under the UN definition (e.g. waterboarding), I can imagine a smart and determined psychiatrist working around that definition of torture and yet leaving a person in a psychological state which makes clear the immense immorality of their work.

In other words, there exists a set of "enhanced interrogations" that are not technically torture (in the way that waterboarding is), but that are still morally abhorrent and would likely be prohibited if revealed.

rhizome10y ago

It's all part and parcel. Psychiatry and psychology are used continually; the physical stuff is intermittent.

joesmo10y ago

I wasn't just referring to the psychiatrists, but to the authorities in general, and torture is the only word to describe what's happening there.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse