No one including the Geneva Conventions and Hitchens suggests that "some" "intimidation" and "some" "discomfort" aren't SOP. Being in prison is in its nature intimidating. Discomfort is inevitable and is not in itself torture. Certain overt acts are prohibited because not to invites abuse, and because we don't want such overt acts perpetrated against our service people. But by introducing that reductio ad absurdum you appear to believe that that's what happened, and in effect dismiss reality.
Here are the UNHCHR articles regarding torture. "Some intimidation" and "some discomfort" don't violate them.
unhchr.ch
You appeared to me to be identifying with the SI contingent that takes the position that the torture we know of so far at Abu Ghraib wasn't torture at all, but mere discomfort, a sort of Skull and Crossbones rite, blowing off steam, really, to quote Limbaugh. Some on SI took the Abu Ghraib photos as a source of amusement, lotsa laughs, really.
The DOJ memo says says this about torture. I wonder if you agree with it. I personally agree with those who think a good thing to keep in mind is that if they can't do it to our soldiers, we'd better not do it to their soldiers. And we shouldn't torture to death innocent civilians caught up in a sweep, either.
2002 Department of Justice Memo on Torture:
"According to the memo, for abuse to count as physical torture, it has to cause pain equivalent to that accompanying "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." To qualify as mental torture, the abuse has to cause (and even be intended to cause) psychological harm that last months or years."
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
unhchr.ch |
