Questioning

"[p]unishment is legally recognized as torture only if it deliberately or intentionally inflicts severe and lasting physical or psychological pain approximating in organ failure or death" (197).

This section of the book I think was the most shocking of all. How can you define what intent is? How is it possible to recognize when a person had intent or not? THe only way (at least it appears to me) these situation can often provide evidence is from inside the brains of the people involved. This leaves a gray area that I don't feel ok with at all.

This section also made me consider questions regarding torture. How we should define torture? Is it better to give a narrow definition or leave it open for interpretation? Clearly, a narrow definition with the Bush administration led to treatment of prisoners, that in my opinion, was inhumane and unacceptable. But could it have been worse? Is it a case by case situation? If we redefined in a different, but still specific way would things be better? I also question if there are any types of "torture" that are appropriate in certain circumstances. Personally, I believe that any type of harm to another human being, physical or psychological is inappropriate. But then when I stop and think about it, would I feel the same way if I knew that using a certain type of torture to find the whereabouts of a missing family member or friend?

These questions bring me back to our previous discussion on prisons in Arizona. Sometimes I think I know the my opinion and how things should be changed, but when I consider the big picture it's hard to say what the right thing to do is. Put in the situations of the prison guards that were constantly having to watch their backs or a interrogator in Iraq that had hours to get as much information out of someone before something bad could happen, what would I do? What is the right thing to do? How can we really know the right answer?