[lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:30:28 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Andreas Ramos <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/6/2006 11:17:40 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?
>
>
> Was anyone at Abu Ghraib "certified"? The place was an out-of-control
dungeon. You can read
> accounts of what was happening. There was no effort to get information.
They were just
> beating up the prisoners for the hell of it.
>
Stalin's purpose, possibly even stated purpose, in using torture was to
keep the population off balance. That was a product of his paranoia. I
love the argument that we need to torture because somebody else is doing it
and since we're morally superior, we need to do it too. Makes perfect
sense, don't you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
