Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What about when the dogs bite?
(Who let the dogs out?!?!)
|
Sometimes even that is okay. The dogs are there for a reason.
For the moment, I'm not trying to be unreasonable. In context, intimidating unruly prisoners, biting unruly prisoners, beating unruly prisoners, stripping unruly prisoners naked, etc... are justified in some circumstances. Thus, its not these mere physical act that makes something wrong, let alone torture.
In the context of naked pyramids, I think that's just not right in any circumstance. Nor bunny ears or other forms of pure unadulterated mass humiliation. Not right, but no, not torture either.
Now, if you routinely used a snarling dog's presence in a routine question and answer interrogation session, I think its almost certainly wrong. One minute some dude is sleeping in his cell, next minute the guy's being dragged in front of bright lights and coming face to face with a snarling guard dog. Simply not right.
Torture? It could be a close call, and even verifiable, in some circumstances. Even if the dog doesn't bite, if you put a foaming dog in my face without a muzzle, I may,
may wet my pants. Ditto snakes, and heights where I feel exposed to falling a significant distance straight down. Fuck it. Putting anyone up against a snake is torture.
But anyway, I'm just saying, context counts. So for Rumsfeld to say its okay to use dogs, well that's just stating the obvious. Except that people with dogs already knew they could use the dogs. So why was Rummy saying they could use the dogs?
I think, in context, he was saying they could use the dogs in ways they weren't supposed to be used. Otherwise, its like getting a letter from the mayor saying "you can drive 55" when only 10% of the roads have a 55 MPH speed limit. How else could the memo be taken?
Bottom line for me? Torture? Maybe not. But RUmmy saying its okay to do things you've been trained not to do? Probably. And that's not good. I fucking hate that guy.
Hello
