Part of the problem with the torture issue, is what you define as torture. Some actions are clearly torture. Others, while possibly unpleasant, clearly aren't.
To an extent both sides of the issue have an incentive to fudge the definitions. Those who support pushing the envelope, will only call the most extreme actions torture (at least if they are unprepared to explicitly support torture). Those who want to reign in interrogations would seek to define torture very broadly. The problem with the broadest possible definitions is that some acts are less objectionable then others, and giving them all the same label can imply an equivalence that doesn't exist. The problem with very narrow definitions is that, at least if you assume anything not labeled as torture is ok, that they seek to quickly dismiss serious practical and moral objections to some forms of interrogation. Torture could be defined so narrowly as to allow many things that most people would see as objectionable (and perhaps as torture).
Offhand I can't think of a good, clear, simple, and short, term for "aggressive interrogation, that might possibly be objectionable, but which falls short of torture". I think a fair amount of what is actually happening falls in to that category, but no one seems to be trying to define the category. Instead you get "its not torture so its ok" from one side and "its all torture" from the other.
Re: "IMO we have a problem starting with how we define our terms of surrender."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. |
