Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

Hi,

However, what I entered this whole sub-thread about was that the category of mental torture should not be simply tossed out, which you appeared to be doing.

Whoa, Nelly. In my struggle to start a discussion of what torture is, I said "Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion." Nowhere did I exclude mental torture. Nor would I. One of the most effective, and insidious, forms of torture is sensory deprivation. Had you added the criteria you considered important, we could have had a discussion on the topic, rather than an argument.

There, as everywhere, there are evolving standards. If you're hoping for a single ahistorical, universally valid measure of torture (and I'm sure you're not), then it's not going to appear, here or elsewhere. Each court, each army, each person is going to have to make the decision, over and over again, so long as war exists, which, as Occhi rightly points out, is probably going to be forever.

I'm not looking for a universal definition. I'm looking for some pragmatic, but solid, criteria that apply to early twenty-first century industrial countries. And if that is still too broad, then let's limit it to the USA in 2009.

--Pete