Also facilities run by US personnel, being interrogated by trained US personnel? I mean, if you want to talk rendition, then that's fine - but it's a different (though related) topic.
You're committed to ignoring the fundamental difference of having your fellow soldiers controlling your fate versus your sworn enemy, in a hostile environment, in a foreign land.
Not really. There's a psychological difference between SERE and captivity where you might actually be executed (as we face), although they put a lot of effort and do a pretty good job of ensuring that that will be reduced as much as possible. Your brain is pretty much fried during the course of SERE. But that division (our soldiers will probably not execute or torture you) is not what imputes the definition of "torture".
I guess I'll admit defeat. Orwell has won, and we've redefined the word 'torture' as EIT and can now pretend that it's something else.
Words have meaning, and that is important.
Right, because being held by your enemies is just like being held by your fellow soldiers.... Give me a break. You don't even believe that.
I'm not saying "just like". I'm saying that the distinction you are highlighting does not impute the definition of torture.
I see, so now it WAS a crime.
No.
Would have been a crime had we done it to members of a military who fought in uniform.
That's a different claim than before, but even with the change in position, all you're doing is hiding behind legal niceties.
Laws are important. For example, we are
also only supposed to ask uniformed members of a military what their name, rank, etc. is; would you support a detainee interrogation program that only asked for that information?
Was rectal feeding an authorized interrogation technique? Hypothermia?
Rectal Feeding is a form of tube-feeding, which has long been used to force those who go on hunger strikes to stay alive. Being cold, yup, is also an interrogation technique. So is being hot, and having loud exceedingly annoying music played on loop for
hours.
So, if the WH or CIA can get its lawyers to fit something in a legal box, we are expected to say, "Well, it's legal, so we should do it. QED."
No. "Lawful"=/="Wise" or "Moral". But if it does not meet the definition of
torture, then it is not - actually -
torture. You can argue that the EIT program was
wrong, you can argue that it was
unwise, but it does not meet the threshold of torture for the simple reason that we went to great lengths to make sure we never crossed that line.
EIT.... As I've said, we do need to have an honest discussion about what happened and learn from it. We can't do that by burying our heads in the sand about what we did.
Sure. I would agree.
Doing something that is intended to prevent someone from getting oxygen to their brain, induce panic, stop breathing, is fundamentally different than driving a car or shooting on a range - you're not even trying to have an honest conversation now.
... trying hard not to simply return the favor and accuse you of projecting, but you were arguing that the
factor of the presence of medical personnel indicated that the actions being taken were torturous. The multiple, obviously non-torturous activities that also require the
factor of the presence of medical personnel are pretty germane to that question.
Brilliant point. I suppose we should be applauded for 'just' subjecting our detainees to torture.
No, the premise of that statement is incorrect. We
have put them up into a pretty nice facility. The Gitmo prisoners have gained weight - most of them were gaunt and undernourished when captured. Now they have the best healthcare they've had in their lives, etc.
The point isn't to say that getting access to a dentist "makes up" for being forced to stand half-naked in a chilly room until you told us what you knew about current attack planning, but merely to point out that these people do not enjoy the protections afforded to uniformed military members in a conflict. Even the
non-controversial interrogation techniques are not supposed to be used on uniformed military members captured during conflict.