There has been a lot of talk lately about the so-called “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” used by the US in the wake of 9-11, and whether or not they were torture. The Geneva Convention, to which we agreed to comply, says “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person…”
I don’t think anyone would argue that the actions in question caused mental and physical pain and suffering. Or at least discomfort, if you have trouble with the word “suffering,” but, remember, you only need mental or physical “pain” according to the Geneva Convention, so even if the “pain” doesn’t cause “suffering” it’s still torture if it is severe. The whole point of the techniques, of course, were to cause enough pain and/or suffering on the part of the person being questioned to convince them to offer up information in order to make the pain stop.
The problem we are experiencing seems to be regarding the definition of “severe,” since we all agree the techniques caused mental and physical pain. Those who say the “techniques” were not torture must, by definition, be claiming the pain was not severe.
So let’s go to my handy desktop Merriam-Webster dictionary, and see what “severe” means. The first two definitions have to do with strictness, which doesn’t apply here. The third definition says, “Causing distress and esp. physical discomfort or pain.” The fourth definition says, “Hard to endure.”
Is it possible the torture deniers think the “techniques” did not cause physical discomfort or pain, or that they were not hard to endure? I think not. It is plain they were designed specifically to cause discomfort and pain, and the whole point of them is that they were supposed to be hard to endure. Indeed, if you read descriptions of them, they certainly sound hard to endure.
Other definitions on the web include things that sound worse, such as this from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: “Causing very great pin, difficulty, worry, damage, etc.; very serious.” The problem here, of course, is now we have to define “very great” or “very serious.”
A more simple way to go about this is to make sure whoever is making the definition of what does or does not constitute torture knows what they’re talking about. Part of the trouble in figuring out whether waterboarding, for example, is torture, is almost none of us know what it feels like to be waterboarded.
So here’s a solution: Make a law that says the person (or group of people) who defines what is and isn’t torture has to know what they’re talking about. Perhaps as part of the qualifications for the job the person(s) would need to undergo some testing to make sure they are not more resistant to pain or suffering than the average person.
Then, in order to call a “technique” something other than torture, the person making the definition would have to experience it first. With that knowledge, they are now properly equipped to rule on whether or not the “technique” inflicted enough pain or suffering to be called “severe,” making it qualify as torture. If they are not willing to experience it for the full amount of time it would be used on a detainee, it would, by default, be considered torture and disallowed.
—————-
“Like” the “>follow me on Twitter.
