Why is there such a debate over what constitutes torture or enhanced interrogation techniques?
The Geneva Conventions seem pretty straightforward. While there are a variety of international agreements to which the United States is a party that prohibit (1) torture and (2) cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, they either have no definition of these terms or definitions that are sufficiently general to permit considerable latitude in interpretation. The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines “torture” in part as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person…” In the infamous “torture memos” this language was interpreted very restrictively to require, for example, that there be a “specific intent” to cause the severe pain and suffering, and that to be “severe” the pain and suffering must be such that death, organ failure or permanent loss of a significant bodily function will result. While this interpretation seems unreasonably restrictive, it illustrates the difficulty that sometimes attends in determ
