by TChris

Terry Jones puts the infamous March 6, 2003 torture memo in perspective by applying its reasoning to parental discipline of children.

The March 6 memo, prepared for Mr. Rumsfeld, explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: if someone “knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith.”

What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only “torture” if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else—such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice—then it is not torture.

In fact, the report went further. It said, if a parent “has a good-faith belief [that] his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture.” So all you’ve got to do to avoid accusations of child abuse is to say that you didn’t think it would cause any lasting harm to the child. Easy peasy!