Centerfield

James Taranto pointed out in today’s “Best of the Web” that the Washington Post article on the supposed torture includes the following statement: “Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians.”

In 1998 the ACLU went to court to force the government to include Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," and Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary”, a collage that incorporates elephant feces in an exhibit in New York.

Why should suspected Muslim terrorists be accorded more privileges than American citizens?

"Perhaps the most damning aspect of the report was the admission" that women smeared fake menstrual blood on prisoners? If that's the most damning aspect of the report, then that's a pretty tame report.

Ahmed Abu Ali, a citizen of the United States, is being held by Saudi officials in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Bush Administration in the attempt to elude federal jurisdiction. See Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, D.D.C No. Civ. A. 04-1258JDB. The Administration does not dispute that it requested the Saudis capture and detain Abu Ali, nor that it did so to elude jurisdiction. The Administration does dispute that Judge Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (whom this president appointed) had jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Affidavits in the case state that counsel in the case have admitted that Abu Ali's fingernails were ripped out during interrogation by the Saudis. The Administration, not content with its use of classified evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees who are not citizens, is now attempting to justify Abu Ali's detention.

Wow... that's pretty chilling, JD.

Whatever happened to the Jeffersonian position that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights? Seems to me that those who facilitate torture are clearly and unequivocally rejecting one of the foundational pillars of our very raison d'être as a nation.

ROA: So you were captured by the ACLU, handcuffed and gagged, then forced to attend an art exhibit?

Bob: No I wasn’t, but even if Andres Serrano's had walked into a public meeting room with his "Piss Christ” where people were forced to look at his image he would not have been accused of torture. He would not have been accused of torture even if he had walked into a Catholic church in the middle of mass.

ROA: I'm pretty sure that nobody is handcuffed to their seat and locked inside the church during mass.

I'm pretty sure the pope has condemned torture in all its forms. Maybe you should see what your religion thinks of torture before you advocate it.

Bob: Some of the more relevant definitions of torture from Webster’s
College Dictionary: 1. The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. 4. Extreme anguish of body or mind; agony. 7. To afflict with severe pain of body or mind.

I do not think what the women did rises to the definition of torture.

I assume all of the prisoners are fundamentalist Muslims. Does this mean women should not be allowed to interrogate them, or if they do they need to be veiled? If the prisoners believe that all non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims does this mean it is torture for a non-Muslim to interrogate prisoners?

ROA, from what I have gathered, some people seem to think we should only go so far as to say "c'mon, pleeeeeease tell us." Anything farther, other than bribing them I guess, is unacceptable.

I say anything short of physical harm is fair game. I especially have no problem with tricking the people into thinking one thing or another, as in this case.

ROA: At the bottom of this post are some more definitions you conveniently left out.

First you were a righteous catholic, till I pointed out how contrary to catholic teaching your opinion is. Now your Bill Clinton trying to parse the meaning of the word "is".

TORTURE: 'torchur
WordNet Dictionary
Definition:

1. [n] the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
2. [n] the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean
3. [n] intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
4. [n] extreme mental distress
5. [n] unbearable physical pain
6. [v] subject to torture
7. [v] torment emotionally or mentally

Bob: You didn’t answer my questions concerning what other actions could be considered torture because of the prisoners’ beliefs. You also removed some of the context from the Wordnet definitions you provided. I will repeat what I said earlier: I do not think what the women did rises to the level of torture.

The noun "torture" has 5 senses in WordNet.

1. anguish, torment, torture -- (extreme mental distress)
2. torture, torment -- (unbearable physical pain)
3. agony, torment, torture -- (intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned")
4. distortion, overrefinement, straining, torture, twisting -- (the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean)
5. torture, torturing -- (the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession")

The verb "torture" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. torment, torture, excruciate, rack -- (torment emotionally or mentally)
2. torture, excruciate, torment -- (subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible")

RAO: Mental torture is a very individual think. Think of something you are afraid of, and then imagine someone imprisoning you while they expose you to that situation or thing over and over again.

Extreme mental distress (torture) can be caused by a lot of things. What causes it in a particular individual varies widely. Exceeding a cultural or religious norm or exposing a person to a situation that causes extreme fear and/or anxiety is with out question torture. When that person is a prisoner and cannot escape the unpleasant situation you are torturing him.

If you have a fear of heights and I hang you out of a helicopter, its torture.
If you are stripped down to your underwear then left in a public place, its torture.
If you are phobic about spiders and I strap you down and let one crawl on you, its torture.
(Note: These examples are for illumination. They are not examples of gitmo events)

It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that holding someone against their will and subjecting them to situations he finds abhorrent is torture. Maybe you find the idea of women locking you up in a cell and smearing fake menstrual blood on you a fun date. These guys didn't!

PPS: Here is the link I used to look up the word torture. It was a direct cut and paste.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=torture

"I am afraid of being held prisoner. Therefore, you may not hold me as a prisoner regardless of my actions, as it would cause me extreme mental distress, which is torture."

Utilizing a suspect's stupidity and gullibility to acquire information from them is not torture. Indeed, it's stock-in-trade for police departments everywhere, just about required to get anything out of anyone other than the verbosely and morosely guilty and terminally dim, and holds up pretty darn well in court.

Bob: I apologize for stating that you had altered the definition of torture. I typed the string wordnet into Google and it gave me this site http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn which then gave me the definition I used.

It is obvious we disagree on the definition of torture. To me, your definition could include the use of non-Muslim or female interrogators for certain fundamentalist Muslims. Since certain clerics have stated that “Satanic Verses” by Salmon Rushdie blasphemous to Muslims reading that to Muslim prisoners could be considered torture. It seems like it could also include the use of black interrogators for white supremacists. I am not willing to accept that any of those actions should be considered torture.

Tully,

Are you saying that what is alledged to have taken place at Gitmo would hold up in court if my local police did the exact same thing?

Tully: I think that would be a little extreme by anyone's standard.

Kevin beat me to where I was going next.

If everybody is having such a hard time deciding what the standard should be, then let's use the one everyone knows. Just ask yourself: "Would this be a legal technique if used by a conventional law enforcement agency in the continental United States."

These guys have been held for years, the argument that they pose an imminent threat is long gone. The courts are in the process of forcing bush to admit that gitmo is part of the United States. It is long past time for us to decide whether we are the good guys or the bad guys.

ROA: Apologize accepted.

Tully: I think that would be a little extreme by anyone's standard.

But it's the standard you were offering as a definition of torture, Bob!

Exceeding a cultural or religious norm or exposing a person to a situation that causes extreme fear and/or anxiety is with out question torture. When that person is a prisoner and cannot escape the unpleasant situation you are torturing him.

I'm showing by reductio ad absurdum that such a definition is simply an inflammatory rhetorical tool and therefore meaningless in practical application. And I didn't have to reduce much to reach the absurdity.

Kevin, depends on which "alleged" you're talking about. I'm not an attorney, nor am I stupid enough to answer sweeping undefined multiple-referent questions. In short, no, I neither said nor alleged that. Though in some few of the alleged "torture" incidents I might well think it.

Police have done some very odd things to get confessions and statements and information without ever stepping over Constitutional lines. Utilizing the fears and ignorance and gullibility and stupidity of the suspect is basic to interrogation technique.

Bob was trying to cast entirely too wide a net--a relativistic one that would allow the definition of "torture" to be anything the prisoner (or anyone else) was offended by, or claimed to be, or that the prisoner simply claimed caused them anxiety or anguish. Like simple confinement.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Tully:

I used the expression "extreme fear and/or anxiety" not just any fear and/or anxiety. After all just being arrested is pretty scary. It just so happens that I have a couple of phobias and when I use that expression I equate it with the equivalent phobic response. Maybe the phrase "phobic reaction" would have been better choice (maybe not).

I think I will stand by my "relative" definition. If you lock someone with claustrophobia in a coffin sized box its torture. For a guy named Tully it may just mean an opportunity to take a nap.

Look at ROA's reaction to the Andres Serrano's "art". For me its just another weird artsy kind of think, yet ROA found it extremely offensive.

Smearing pig's blood on a Muslim is equivalent to condemning him to hell. For me it just means I have to take a shower.

What freaks a person out is very relative. If its done in the context of imprisonment and interrogation its torture.

4. [n] extreme mental distress
7. [v] torment emotionally or mentally

Bob, by using relativistic phrasing to "establish" relativistic standards you make it impossible to have any objective standard at all. Torture is thus whatever you say it is. Depriving them of conjugal visits is torture. Painting their toenails is torture. Not giving them caviar for lunch is torture. Which takes you right back to:

"I am afraid of being held prisoner. Therefore, you may not hold me as a prisoner regardless of my actions, as it would cause me extreme mental distress, which is torture."

Which you then called "extreme by anyone's standards." Except you're once again affirming that this is your standard, and your definition. I didn't say it, I'm just pointing it out.

Tully: "Torture is thus whatever you say it is."

I of course disagree. Torture is a specific action designed to create a specific reaction in a specific individual. The point is to create "extreme fear and/or anxiety" along with telling the victim it will all stop if they just talk. How you create this condition is relative to each victim.

Locking a claustrophobic in a coffin is hardly the equivalent of depriving someone (the Hilton sisters) of caviar. The difference is when an activity is designed to drive a specific individual over the edge by playing on that individual's mental weakness. Ms Hilton will eventually get over no caviar, the claustrophobic will beg for mercy and tell you anything you want to hear. (You know, as if you were torturing him.)

If you put a snake in my cell I would make a pet of it, while my coworker would soil herself, scream and cry and tell you anything you wanted to know.

Tully:
"I am afraid of being held prisoner. Therefore, you may not hold me as a prisoner regardless of my actions, as it would cause me extreme mental distress, which is torture."

Where is the intent? Is it your intent to cause "extreme fear and/or anxiety" with the promise of release if he spills the beans. Then yes it torture. If your intent is to stop him from shooting you it self defense.

See doesn't all make sense now?

You can't compare enemy prisoners/terrorists to suspects in crimes inside the country. The law enforcement attitude of the past towards terrorism is part of why it's become such a huge problem today.

It always made sense, Bob. Your standard is entirely subjective, circumstantial, relative, and impossible to ever objectively assess before, during, or after interrogation.

All it requires is a psychic interrogator with infallible omniscience, able to utilize their super-human powers to miraculously distinguish moment-to-moment between the [sarcasm]concrete and objective[/sarcasm] states of "mild fear and/or anxiety" and "moderate fear and/or anxiety" and "extreme fear and/or anxiety" in the mind of the interrogated--and never ever cross the line into the latter with any intent.

It's easily enforced with the omniscient retroactive psychic ability of those making post-interrogatory evaluations to divine the intent of the interrogator and their state of perfect knowledge of the internal mental state of the interrogated at every single moment in the process!

Lacking these things, then under your standard torture is whatever anyone wants to call torture. "Anyone" including the person being interrogated.

Which means it's not any "standard" at all.

Oh bother, your just getting grumpy cause its obvious you lost.
In fact I've done such a good job, I think I'll quote myself.

“Is it your intent to cause "extreme fear and/or anxiety" with the promise of release if he spills the beans.”

I like that concept so much I think I will paraphrase it: Are you terrorizing someone for the purpose of gaining obedience or information.

The mechanism and props you use are irrelevant to the definition and relative only for that specific victim.

“impossible to ever objectively assess”

Bull paddies! If you can't tell the difference between nervous, agitated and terrified then I have been communicating with a computer generated artificial intelligence all this time ( Is that you HAL9000?).

Here are some hints:
When they start screaming and/or crying in terror they are terrified.
When they curl up in the fetal position they are terrified.
When they loose control of their bodily functions they are terrified.
When they start shaking uncontrollably whenever you approach, they are terrified.
When they beg you to stop whatever your doing, and promise to do anything you want they are terrified.
When they let out a slow gut wrenching moan of anguish an start to cry you have broken them.

Bob: I read the Washington Post article about the sexual tactics supposedly used at Guantanamo. There was no indication that any of the prisoners responded in the manner you mentioned in your "hints."

"When they start screaming and/or crying..." (rest of list snipped).

Or they could be pretending. How do you know?

Is there any sort of coercive interrogation that you would consider legitimate? If so, can you give examples?

ROA: Just a quick note. (I'm headed out kayaking the rest of the day). Are we reading the same article? This is the one I found:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12431-2005Feb9.html

I bypassed registration by doing a google news search on “Washington Post Guantanamo” then sorted by date.

“Some of the accounts resemble the sexual aspects of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib.”

“The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been made public, said the fake blood was used on Muslim men before they intended to pray, because some Muslims believe that "if a woman touches him prior to prayer, then he's dirty and can't pray." Muslim men also believe that contact with women other than their wives diminishes religious purity.”

Bob, I've seen every one of those things from people pulled in for DUI who were told they would be spending the night in a cell, and nothing more. Even when they weren't being charged, just held to sleep it off. At least a few of those reactions must have been genuine. Must have been the grueling torture, eh? I guess the arresting officers shouldn't have pulled 'em in in the first place, as it constituted "torture" on their parts by your definition.

You wish to conflate the legal concept of impermissible interrogation practices rising to the level of torture with a metaphorical and metaphysical one of emotive self-righteous condemnatory angst, mingling and mangling the two for your own purposes.

So you throw more undefined terms at it, re-emphasize the unfathomables such as "intent," and call it a "win." That's just as ingenious and convincing as Dukakis calling the '88 election a "moral victory."

And nowhere do you provide any way to distinguish between the oviously legal that produces such reactions as you described, the distasteful but legal and permissible, and actions that could be known to be over the line before being implemented.

If your standard does not provide a clear legal guideline for interrogators that can be objectively used as a "bright line" they should not cross, one that an outside observer could clearly and objectively assess conformance to without doubt or dispute, then it's simply a river of rhetorical sheep dip, as broad and deep as anyone wants to claim.

Bob: It sounds like the same article. As I said I saw no mention of prisoners screaming and/or crying in terror; curling up in the fetal position; losing control of their bodily functions; shaking uncontrollably whenever guards approached; begging the guards to stop, and promising to do anything the guards wanted; or letting out slow gut wrenching moans of anguish and starting to cry.

ROA: “There was no indication that any of the prisoners responded in the manner you mentioned in your "hints." “

From what I read the only prisoner reaction it described at all was a head butt to a half naked “interrogator”. How does the lack of a description, of a prisoners reaction, help your or my position on what constitutes torture?

Tully:
1)I don't think a Muslim confined to gitmo will be partying with Jack Daniels. Besides, how does the case of someone voluntarily drinking themselves stupid apply here. My statement was “Are you terrorizing someone for the purpose of gaining obedience or information.” Nothing you've described even comes close.

2)Very sneaky. Try and redirect the argument by implying that we have been seeking a legal definition of torture all this time. Knowing full well that I am not a lawyer, an can easily be tripped up in the bizarro world of legal jargon. Pass! I have never insinuated that I was making a legal argument. I quoted a dictionary not some legal tome.

I am simply assuming the position (for the purpose of this argument) of an ordinary person who when witnessing the events at gitmo would say “Dude, your torturing him.” Then I have created a definition and situations that any ordinary human could easily comprehend. If you want me to enshrine my definitions and examples in a legal format your going to have to spot me the cash for a lawyer and a psychiatric social worker. I seem to remember that the psychiatric social worker does have a little book they use to describe things like stalkings, abuse and such, for legally purposes, in their reports. The name of the reference they use escapes me at the moment.

IOW, your definition of torture is just what I said it was--a loose and relative term, entirely subjective, and definitive of nothing whatsoever. Used for singing to the choir, and not for any real-world applications of use to anyone other than rabble-rousing. No?

(How was kayaking? No point in it around here.)

Bob: The detainee lawyers made the comparison to “Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians” not having their fingernails pulled off. I assume that if their clients were as severely traumatized as you assume their lawyers would have mentioned it. I am not also aware of any Christians who suffered the symptoms you described by viewing the “Piss Christ.”

Hope your kayaking was enjoyable.

Tully: So using your criteria, if I can't produce a legal document I'm irrelevant to the discussion? You just excluded the words of every philosopher and thinker from Jesus Christ to Martin Luther King. Were they just “singing to the choir”?

Are you saying you don't accept any definition of torture, except that which causes physical pain? If that the case, then if a child is physically tortured and the parent is forced to watch, then the parent is not being tortured? After all the hot irons never touch the parent, how do we know he is uncomfortable?

ROA: Ever had your home or car burglarized? How did it feel to be violated like that? Every had a bully at school spend months hunting you for sport? How did it feel to be in an unpleasant situation that you can't escape?

In order to empathize with someones ordeal you first need some kind of experience that you can relate to theirs. The essence of the detainees experience is a feeling of being violated and a knowledge that a new violation will occur every day until you break.

Do you honestly believe that the orthodox Jews who had their beards shaved by the Nazi's did not break down and cry? The entire point of shaving the beard was to humiliate and violate the victim.

I had the opportunity to interact with some abuse victims awhile back. Let me tell you, you'll be on the floor bawling with them in a second. The physical wound (if there were any) heal quickly. The emotional wounds last a lifetime. I would bet my entire life savings that those orthodox Jews, who survived the war, still tear up when they remember the day their beards were shaved.

PS:The kayaking was good. We do flat water kayaking on the local TVA river/lake complex. Although one of guys I was with did an imitation of an old sea dog and said “the river may be placid now, but she can turn on you in a second”. Sure enough it did. From mirror calm to wind churned white caps in under 10 minutes. Whoa!

Not at all, Bob. I'm saying that your "defining" of "torture" through vague and relativistic rhetoric when discussing potential real abuses in this specific political context provides no insight, only condemnatory talking points for partisan rabble-rousing. It doesn't do anything to prevent real abuses, to show real abuses, or to accurately define preventable abuses. It provides no usable guidelines for interrogators or assessors. It just raises the noise level by allowing anything the speaker wants to call "torture" to be emotively condemned, and drowns out any realistic assessments of events.

The subject of the thread isn't child abuse or burglary victims (or arrested drunks, for that matter). Once again you broaden the field and get even more diffuse and irrelevant. The subject is the prisoners at Guantanamo and the limits of permissible interrogation techniques that may be used on them, and the lines between totally legal and accepted techniques, unorthodox but legal techniques, and illegal techniques. Please note that those are legal concepts, not relativistic metaphysical ones.

Bob: My homes have been broken into three times, and my car once; the joys of life in a big city. It wasn’t enjoyable, but it hardly rose to the level of torture. As far as how it feels to be in an unpleasant situation I cannot avoid: What about the Catholic that cannot avoid the fact that his/her tax money is paying for someone to insert a symbol he cherishes in urine?

It appears that we have different concepts of what constitutes torture and it unlikely either of us will change our opinions as a result of this dialog, but it remained civil, which greatly impresses me.

ROA: I think that this boards sponsors would agree, that conversations like ours are what this site is about.
Peace!

Tully: Again with the sneaky. I have just reviewed this thread. What I have read is a discussion of what constitutes torture. Several dictionary definitions were introduced into the discussion and elaborated on.

Now with your last two post you have tried to redirect the conversation to:”The subject is the prisoners at Guantanamo and the limits of permissible interrogation techniques that may be used on them, and the lines between totally legal and accepted techniques, unorthodox but legal techniques, and illegal techniques. “

Very good debating technique. It obscures the fact you have not attempted to supply any of the items you have listed as the subject mater of this discussion. You then use very colorful adjectives to imply that my words are meaningless babbling, nice touch. It avoids the subject mater at hand but its good technique. Its a rainy afternoon and I'm to sore from kayaking to move, so lets play.

Rather than poopooing my definitions and examples, how about supplying some of your own?

Specifically for:
1) Totally legal and accepted techniques
2) Unorthodox but legal techniques
3) Illegal techniques.

Also answer the question of “Is it possible to mentally or emotionally torture someone?”

1) sleep deprivation, repetitive questioning, "good cop bad cop", other psychological stressing, lying to subject
2) non-life threatening physical stressing, elevated psychological "fear factors" and mental stressing (repeated playing of Donnie Osmond records may rise to level 3)
3) cat o' none tails, pulling out of toenails, beatings, electric shock (traditional world-wide but illegal under any American standard)

Title of thread: Abuse at Guantanamo

Initial post: the assignment of unorthodox (but not apparently illegal) interrogatory tactics used at Guantanamo as "gross abuse," and calling for the punishment of both the interrogators AND their superiors. "Soldiers do not have the right to stomp on the culture and religion of detainees, no matter how vile they may be, no matter what wrongs they may have committed."

First comment: comparison by detainee's lawyers of alleged Guantanamo "torture" with Nazis tactics and American cultural shock artists.

Second comment: an example of actual torture--the ripping out of fingernails.

Following: repeated attempts by Bob to define the unorthodox tactics used at Guantanamo as "torture," based on the mental state of the prisoners, rather than on any objective standards of the interrogator's actions, expanding farther and farther afield during subsequent posts with no attempt to link same back up to original thread or initial post. Indeed, with active avoidance. Persistent attempts by Tully to argue against the use of applying open-ended, relativistic, and subjective definitions of "torture".

Yep, I've tried to get you to bring your flights of rhetorical fancy back to the subject, how the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and why and how the interrogators are somehow guilty of "torture" for using the unorthodox tactics they used, even though the tactics apparently never rose to level 3. You just keep getting farther away, and accusing me of being sneaky and legalistic because I keep asking what practical purpose your argument has, and how it applies.

As relevant to the subject title, initial post, and subsequent wanderings afield.

Oh, wow, I guess a "cat o' none tails" wouldn't rise to level 3--except maybe under your definition. Make that "cat o' nine tails." :-)

After the three comment you listed the vast majority were trying to find a definition of torture. Certainly the ones I posted (including YOUR comments) were discussing what qualifies as torture. It was only toward the end of the thread when you decided to change the rules. Regardless, I'm not going to have a discussion about what subject we were discussing. That's just silly.

Sooooooooooo!
Lets look at what you have provided:

First off, 1,2 and 3 are examples, but I don't see any legal definition that can be given to interrogators for real world guidance.

You wouldn't be trying to palm off some “vague and relativistic rhetoric” on me would you? What's a real world interrogator supposed to do with “elevated psychological "fear factors"? Make a naked human pyramid? Strip a prisoner and threaten to rape them? Strap someone to a board and pretend to drown them?

Secondly, with only an example available, they can be taken to the same absurd extremes that you took my examples. For instance: For sleep deprivation, after a certain amount of time, sleep deprivation can cause permanent psychological damage. I think a court of law would object when you drive the person insane.

For item 2 a “elevated psychological "fear factors” could be hanging a person over the side of a building. What judge wouldn't throw out a confession obtained in this manner?

I say we talk about #2. Can I get you to agree to that?

Bob, you seem to be intent on ignoring everybody here but Tully, but to reiterate:

Is there any sort of coercive interrogation that you would consider legitimate? If so, can you give examples?

By the way, this is the definition of torture in U.S. Federal law:

Section 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) ''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ''severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
  (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
  (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
  (C) the threat of imminent death; or
  (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ''United States'' includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

David Fleck: Believe it or not, I do have a life away from this blog. I was already carrying on two conversations with Tully and ROA. This isn't the old west, just because you call me out for a gunfight, doesn't mean I have to go.

However I am grateful to you for supplying the federal torture law. I was going to see if I could locate it this morning.

As for the answer to your question: There Probably is one. In general I would say if it's legal in the continental USA it's ok for Gitmo.

Hey Tully! The law David supplied seems to have elements very similar to my posts.
Now will you admit I've won :-}

[To whom it may concern--Bob and I just plain like to argue. It amuses us. Please do not mistake our dialog for serious antagonism. At least, that's my mileage. Bob's may differ.]

Why, Bob? It actually provides some concrete definitions that back up my own posts. It provides guidelines. It actually defines terms, instead of leaving them hanging in the air as you do.

Now, with the legal standards that apply in hand, what reported actions on the part of the Guantanamo interrogators would you assign as being "torture" under 18 U.S.C. 113C 2340A? Be specific.

(Yea, what Tully said. Maybe we should start putting disclaimer with all our posts.)

Tully: Obviously I have won because the main trusts of my attempts to define torture are supported in the legal definition. Also the last section definitely includes Gitmo: "all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States"

Your option #2 just got blow out of the water by the wording of the legal definition.

"mental pain or suffering" counts as torture
"threatened infliction of severe physical pain" counts as torture.
"procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;" counts as torture.

Oops missed the last question.

I would say that the fake menstrual blood and scantly clad women count as torture. The point was to make the prisoners "impure" and unable to pray. Clearly a case of "procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;"