As is often the case in hotly contested discussion, claims of invalid comparisons are often made alongside calls to compare "apples to apples" instead of "apples to ice buckets" or some other such mis-matched scale.
In order to help further along the discussion of why rendition, torture and individual rights to privacy, decency and proper representation in a court of law matters no matter the reason, here's two current stories that both concern the abuse of a man and a tortured penis.
Tattooed privates prove not so private:
PHOENIX - A surgeon faces a disciplinary hearing for snapping a photo of a patient's tattooed genitals during an operation and showing it around to other doctors.
"Patient privacy is a serious matter, and photographing someone in this manner without a good reason is something we will investigate down to the last detail," said Dr. Joseph Sirven...
The patient/victim stated "The longer I sit here the angrier I get."
Now compare it to this article, Lawyer: CIA Has Photos of Outsourced Torture of Gitmo Suspect:
A lawyer for a Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspect allegedly tortured in Morocco when his interrogation was outsourced by the U.S. says the CIA was present and has photographs of the physical abuse of his client.
Binyam Mohamed, a 27-year-old Ethiopian was sliced in the chest and penis by interrogators during the 18 months he was held in Morocco in 2002 and 2003, according to his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve, a British human rights group.
So...don't ~both~ men deserve to have their days in court? Do the crimes and offenses committed against one man compare in any way to those committed against the other, or can you justify either circumstance and let the perpetrators off scott-free?
Just a little something to think about.
For a little more to think about, make the jump.