It's torture, stupid

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, (the all time winner for sick euphemism of the millennium) were not torture according to the Bush administration and its apologists. Since the methods they advocated did not constitute "severe pain or suffering, whether  physical or mental,*" there was no torture. Besides, even if there was some unfortunate damage, "important intelligence has been obtained" that  has "saved American lives" (apparently Americans represent the Gold Standard against which the value of other human lives must be compared)  This last canard was something the Bush administration waved over every inhumane effort it made in the name of the"war on terror."

It is true that, until now, the methods used as enhanced interrogation techniques - waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, etc. - fell under the heading of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (CIDT), also illegal under the Conventions. Bush administration got around that in two ways. One was to employ the disgusting euphemism cited above. The second was to rename prisoners in the "war on terror" as "enemy combatants."

However, as this article in the March 10, 2010 edition of NewScientist attests, all these little dances amount to naught: a distinction without a difference. Torture or CIDT or enhanced interrogation technique, they all result in permanent, sometimes disabling, damage to the victims.

Citing research collected from a variety of sources, continents and victim populations, the authors make clear that coercive interrogation tactics are both terribly damaging to the individual and to the intelligence community, because people lie to you when you torture them. They will say whatever they can to get it to stop.

So, yeah, great article. You should read it. If you are confused by the NewScientist article, please just refer to the title of this post.

*this and other quoted statements in this paragraph are drawn from the Geneva Conventions