>> Why is that not torture?
Well, first of all, since torture would be a crime, the burden is not to show that something ISN'T torture; the burden is to show that it is. However, I'll gladly explain why it isn't. But I'd also like for you to explain why you believe it IS.
The definition of "torture" requires it to involve "severe pain or suffering" which waterboarding does not involve.
There is no particular pain involved (according to those who have experienced it) and the fact that it lasts, at most, a few minutes (and normally on seconds) shows that there is no "suffering".
I'm not sure it is possible to have "torture" that lasts only seconds or a few minutes. I suppose it might be but I cannot think of anything.
Moreover, this is the reason that Abu Ghraib didn't involve torture as well. People, mostly liberals, have totally conflated the concepts of torture with what is or is not permitted under the Geneva Conventions. While torture is prohibited, so other things that aren't torture, which may include humiliation, etc. I'm not aware of anything that happened at Abu Ghraib that logically could be considered as torture. Yet, the media has constantly claimed otherwise, as have those on the Left.
To be sure, I would have no problem with using torture if it were a "Jack Bauer" moment or against any known terrorist. None, whatsoever, and in fact, I would be pleased to perform the torture myself. I think it should be used against such individuals freely and without hesitation. OTOH, I understand the political issues that require it to be handled in the background.
The argument that use of torture subjects our captureds to the potential for torture is nonsense. ANY Middle Eastern terrorist who captures one of our guys will thoughtlessly use torture without regard for what we do or do not do.
You can't fight a war on terror and take off the table techniques which the enemy leaves on the table. |
