# The Senate torture report **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773 "2014-12-09T17:20:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/481 "2014-12-11T15:12:37Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > They have the oversight power. For example, they could subpoena Holder into a committee to explain, meticulously, why he is refusing to prosecute these horrible crimes. Of course, they would only do that if they _actually_ thought horrible crimes were committed, instead of just blabbing about it for show. So do you rescind you earlier assessment that failing to prosecute was cowardly, and now make the claim that failure to subpeona someone to testify was cowardly? Do you acknowledge that your earlier statement was stupid and/or ignorant? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/482 "2014-12-11T15:14:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Glad you find it interesting. Question is, do you find any of it wrong? Here it is again: > > After you answer, the nice nurse here will take you to your next appointment in Room 101. Yep, definitely torture, for phobic victims. Putting me into a coffin for a significant period of time might kill me (due to extreme terror), and would definitely qualify as torture. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/483 "2014-12-11T15:29:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As a rule no they _don’t,_ because torture is a disastrously bad method of gaining information. That’s just common sense, isn’t it? A subject under torture will say anything that might get the interrogator to stop. It will not necessarily bear any relation to the truth. If the subject does not **know** the answers, he had better make something up; if he does know, he probably has his diversionary lies prepared already. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/484 "2014-12-11T15:34:56Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] The fact that we actually have people defending this shit and trying to conflate it with military training convinces me that for some, there is literally nothing the U.S. government could do, especially under the administration of their preferred party, that would not be defensible. If it came to light that the Bush administration had ordered the deaths of one hundred thousand Iraqi children in gas chambers, I’m quite certain that act would have at least several happy defenders here on the SDMB. [/quote] We’re talking about a practice that’s been illegal under Common Law since Felton’s Case in the 1620s, if not before, and is arguably _ius cogens_ under International Law. There were literally people in the time of Charles Stewart who had a more liberal outlook than a fair few posters on the SDMB, it seems. The government being prevented from torturing confessions out of suspects was one of the ancient liberties that the American Revolutionaries were fighting to maintain, for Christ’s sake! And now you have posters like **Terr** remonstrating against a “liberal hive mind”, to which no doubt the Founding Fathers would have freely subscribed, sickened by revelations that would have been deemed unacceptable four hundred years ago. There’s people here who could justify any act whatsoever as long as it was presented as necessary to the American national interest. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/485 "2014-12-11T15:37:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What you describe is torture. Even if someone has no problem with getting acid dripped on their crotch, dripping acid on crotches as a procedure to get people to talk is still torture. Someone might, for some strange reason, like getting their fingernails pulled out, but that’s still torture. Sleep deprivation for long periods of time similarly qualifies – it causes severe pain and discomfort. Similarly? SIMILARLY? I think you need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word before you use it again. Those things are astoundingly unalike. You attempt to bring them together by waving your magic wand and placing them under the umbrella of “torture”. Beg the question much? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If it’s “severe pain”, then it sounds like it fits the definition. So moderate pain falls shy. Good, that makes my point that outside of extreme cases that are clearly “torture”, it’s a huge grey area. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > To bring pleasure to the torturer, I suppose. Some torture is done for one reason or the other, and some is probably done for both. Torture is also used for punishment, sometimes (see below about the “rectal feeding”). If it is done for the jollies of the person administering the discomfort/pain, I don’t even think it’s “torture”. It’s worse. At least torture has a strategic point to it. You remove that and we’re in crazy Charlie Manson territory. I don’t doubt these individual exist, but if they do, and have acted thusly, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. And get them mental help. They’re sick. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then how is it relevant? It’s a use of the word “breaking” that’s totally different and unrelated. Oh, please. The words are used in similar ways, but that doesn’t mean that anyone thinks the two uses refer to identical behavior. That the person being "broken are being "broken for similar reasons. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s torture. People tortured for information similarly have “the ability to avoid the discomfort. They just need to reveal the information.” Definitely torture. Not necessarily. You’re forgetting the scale I offered. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Huh? I quoted it. Oh, I see that you did. My mistake. But you obviously didn’t _digest_ it. I don’t see how you can read that article and conclude what you do about rectal feeding. Seriously. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What benefit? The “feeding” part. Getting the body nutrients. Kinda obvious, no? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not a safer way. It wasn’t done for medical reasons – CIA interrogators used it as a means of “[behavior control](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/rectal-feeding-of-detainees-called-abuse-with-guise-of-treatment.html)” to end hunger strikes and water refusal. One CIA officer noted **“While IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case,”.** They did it for punishment – to end water refusal, which could be treated with IV infusions (which are safer and more effective, since the rectum is an inefficient way to absorb nutrients). **Bolding mine.** And it seems to be necessary as it conflicts with the position you hold. It not only did what IV does, but it had an ancillary benefit, i.e., ending water refusal. And subsequently the need to forcibly administer IV. I think you’re over looking the benefit of reducing the number of encounters of soldier-doctors with needles forcing their will upon a hostile enemy. Also, I’m not sure of the distinctions between IV and “force-feeding”. Don’t know if administering an IV renders "force feeding moot, or if there is benefit to the force feeding. There seems to be. That said, I think I’d rather have a suppository type thing shove up my butt than having a tube forced down my mouth or nose. It appears to be, oddly, much less invasive. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/486 "2014-12-11T15:42:51Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > And if someone in authority made you move in such a way that it was excruciating until you gave up information they think you had, you would be perfectly okay with that? You would be okay with this happening to your friends and/or family? Perfectly okay? No. I’d hate it. And that would be the point of the treatment. If I didn’t hate it there would be no reason to comply in order to stop the discomfort. As far as friends or family. I can honestly say that if they were part of a group that had just blown up 3,000 innocent people and had knowledge of other, similar plans, I would understand it to be the right thing to do. As much as It might break my heart for the friend or family member. Now, if you knew that one of your friends or family members were going to be among the next victims, would you be “okay” with making someone stand on a broken leg in order to proven the attack? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/487 "2014-12-11T15:45:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Similarly? SIMILARLY? I think you need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word before you use it again. Those things are astoundingly unalike. You attempt to bring them together by waving your magic wand and placing them under the umbrella of “torture”. Beg the question much? I’m not waving any wands – I’m fitting them to the definition of “torture”. They fit pretty cleanly. Torture isn’t just about cutting and breaking bones. > [@](#): > > So moderate pain falls shy. Good, that makes my point that outside of extreme cases that are clearly “torture”, it’s a huge grey area. The grey area, if it exists, doesn’t include these particular techniques, which cannot reasonably be described as not causing “severe pain”. > [@](#): > > If it is done for the jollies of the person administering the discomfort/pain, I don’t even think it’s “torture”. It’s worse. At least torture has a strategic point to it. You remove that and we’re in crazy Charlie Manson territory. I don’t doubt these individual exist, but if they do, and have acted thusly, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. And get them mental help. They’re sick. That’s still torture. Torture isn’t just for interrogation – sometimes it’s for (sick) “fun”, sometimes for punishment. > [@](#): > > Oh, please. The words are used in similar ways, but that doesn’t mean that anyone thinks the two uses refer to identical behavior. That the person being "broken are being "broken for similar reasons. They’re not at all being broken for similar reasons. Military training and answering questions are very different reasons – and the results are very different. One doesn’t cross over. Torturing someone would result in a terrible military recruit. > [@](#): > > Not necessarily. You’re forgetting the scale I offered. The scale doesn’t apply to the techniques in question. > [@](#): > > Oh, I see that you did. My mistake. But you obviously didn’t _digest_ it. I don’t see how you can read that article and conclude what you do about rectal feeding. Seriously. You seriously don’t see how protruding the rectum from the anus might be described as “horrific”? Seriously? > [@](#): > > The “feeding” part. Getting the body nutrients. Kinda obvious, no? It’d be necessary if there wasn’t a better and safer way. And there was. > [@](#): > > **Bolding mine.** And it seems to be necessary as it conflicts with the position you hold. It not only did what IV does, but it had an ancillary benefit, i.e., ending water refusal. Yes, punishment by torture is more likely to end water refusal. > [@](#): > > And subsequently the need to forcibly administer IV. I think you’re over looking the benefit of reducing the number of encounters of soldier-doctors with needles forcing their will upon a hostile enemy. Also, I’m not sure of the distinctions between IV and “force-feeding”. Don’t know if administering an IV renders "force feeding moot, or if there is benefit to the force feeding. There seems to be. That said, I think I’d rather have a suppository type thing shove up my butt than having a tube forced down my mouth or nose. It appears to be, oddly, much less invasive. I’m not overlooking the benefit of torture here. But that’s not a medical objective – the medical objective is hydration, which would be provided by IV. “Punishment” is not a medical objective. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/488 "2014-12-11T15:46:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yep, definitely torture, for phobic victims. Putting me into a coffin for a significant period of time might kill me (due to extreme terror), and would definitely qualify as torture. Yes, but that’s not the same for everyone. Some people might be able to spend all day in there and not freak out. I have an phobia so strong that I don’t even share it, lest someone find out and use it against me. (Hey, you can’t be too safe!) But your answer proves my point that you can’t necessarily simply look at a method and say “torture”. You have to look at duration, judge the person’s tolerance, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/489 "2014-12-11T15:56:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Perfectly okay? No. I’d hate it. And that would be the point of the treatment. If I didn’t hate it there would be no reason to comply in order to stop the discomfort. > > As far as friends or family. I can honestly say that if they were part of a group that had just blown up 3,000 innocent people and had knowledge of other, similar plans, I would understand it to be the right thing to do. As much as It might break my heart for the friend or family member. > > Now, if you knew that one of your friends or family members were going to be among the next victims, would you be “okay” with making someone stand on a broken leg in order to proven the attack? What if your friends and/or family were part of a group that just robbed a bank and had knowledge of the whereabouts of the money and/or the rest of the bank robbing crew? Would making them stand on a broken leg until they gave up the location of the money and other robbers be the right thing to do? What if your friends and/or family were picked up by the police because they looked like a suspect, or were pointed out by a neighbor as a suspect, and then were made to stand on a broken leg until they confessed to the crime? Would that be the right thing to do? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/490 "2014-12-11T15:59:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’d be necessary if there wasn’t a better and safer way. And there was. > > Yes, punishment by torture is more likely to end water refusal. > > I’m not overlooking the benefit of torture here. But that’s not a medical objective – the medical objective is hydration, which would be provided by IV. “Punishment” is not a medical objective. I needed to run, but just want to quickly address this. A few points: 1. From what I read, both via the spots here about the report and the article, it does not appear that rectal feeding and a protruding rectum have a close relationship. I think the report relates one instance of that happening. In the article, it talks about the condition in a way that doesn’t tie it to some violent behavior. 2. There IS a medical benefit beyond providing nutrients. Both to the prisoner and those caring for him. The fewer encounters in which a prisoner has to be restrained for an IV to be administered or a feeding tube to be inserted the better. Particularly when the prisoner is of the violent I would kill you if I had the chance type. Also, a doctor friend of mine told me once that the fewer IVs administered even in hospitals the better. Because there is a chance for infection. He told me that hospitals would be interested in his new product because they recognize the danger and are eager to take whatever steps they can to reduce it. You use “punishment”. You can choose to characterize the action as such, but that’s just your bias coming through. More benignly, it is coercive. Is their unpleasantness involved? Sure. But like I said, I think I’d rather have that than being force fed with a tube. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/491 "2014-12-11T16:42:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s just common sense, isn’t it? A subject under torture will say anything that might get the interrogator to stop. It will not necessarily bear any relation to the truth. If the subject does not **know** the answers, he had better make something up; if he does know, he probably has his diversionary lies prepared already. People have pointed that out for centuries at the least; but the pro-torture people ignore it. They ignore common sense, they ignore the evidence, they ignore the experts; they just know torture works, and works better than anything else. It’s a faith based position, not a rational one; they have faith in torture the way other people have faith in their god or the existence of the soul. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/492 "2014-12-11T16:44:38Z")
@ **magellan01** : You’re really, really missing the point. You’re missing it so badly, it’s nearly as bad as the “paper towel tube” fiasco. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/493 "2014-12-11T16:45:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, but that’s not the same for everyone. Some people might be able to spend all day in there and not freak out. I have an phobia so strong that I don’t even share it, lest someone find out and use it against me. (Hey, you can’t be too safe!) But your answer proves my point that you can’t necessarily simply look at a method and say “torture”. You have to look at duration, judge the person’s tolerance, etc. No, you don’t. It’s true that putting me in a coffin for ten minutes wouldn’t qualify as torture, since I don’t have a phobia of torture, whereas giving me painful injections would qualify, given my phobia of needles (which if you’re curious are the subject of a 2008 pit thread–I ain’t fuckin around). But that doesn’t mean that torture is situational in every context. Some things are torture for everyone. These include the infliction of acute pain, such as cigarette burns to sensitive skin. These include the infliction of acute psychological distress, such as staging mock executions and threatening to murder loved ones and shoving food up the rectum. These include the infliction of chronic suffering, such as inducing hypothermia and depriving sleep over the course of more than a week. All of these are torture to **everyone**. And even the specifics you’re talking about fall under a general category. If you’re deliberately activating someone’s phobia in an extreme fashion–whether it’s locking a claustrophobic in a coffin, or it’s putting their head in a cage full of rats–you’re engaging in torture of the “psychological distress” category. This isn’t situational, except that you need to figure out what their phobia is in order to engage in this practice. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/494 "2014-12-11T16:45:31Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So because drug dealers kill innocent kids, it’s OK for American cops to kill innocent kids? > > What the fuck is wrong with you people? > > Torture is OK as long as we only do it to bad people? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? > > The contention that waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, sleep deprivation, starvation, dehydration, unrelenting noise, threatening family members, and so on aren’t torture is simply disgusting. It is torture, it’s torture straight out of Stalin’s gulags. LITERALLY copied straight out of Stalin’s gulags, they literally actually read about Stalin’s torture methods and set out to copy them in American-run prisons. > > Oh, it was bad when Stalin tortured people, but OK for Americans, because Stalin was bad and we’re good? It was bad for Nazis to torture people, because Nazis are bad, but we tortured people for good? And we know the people we tortured were bad guys because…the torturers told us they were bad. > > The myth of the Jack Bauer-style hero torturer is fiction. Torturers who only torture because of a ticking time bomb, who only torture bad people, who don’t enjoy torture, are fictional. Because if torture makes you sick, you can’t keep doing it. So the people who end up running torture chambers are invariably sadists. It always works this way, it is inevitable. And so anyone who ends up in a torture chamber gets tortured, not for information because information is always secondary to the sadist, the purpose of information or confessions extracted from the prisoner is merely to mollify the sadist’s bosses, so the sadist can continue his fun. > > Hey, if there’s a terrorist holding the disarm codes to the nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan, and you’re the hero who decides to torture him to defuse the bomb OR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE, then go right the fuck ahead and torture him. And then turn yourself in. Oh, you need to keep your torture secret? How convenient. You reserve the right to torture people, in the name of national security, except you get to decide who to torture, and when and the masses can never know of your sacrifice. All for their own good. > > That’s called, you know, fascism. > > Maybe there are cases where torture could be justified. But playing the hypothetical torture game misses the fucking point by a fucking mile. It’s not that torture is or is not justified, it’s that government agents should not be given the legal power to torture people. I can imagine shooting a guy who deserves death if there’s no other way this person can be stopped. That doesn’t mean cops get to summarily execute whoever they like. A hero cop can torture a terrorist and get the bomb codes, but he doesn’t get LEGAL AUTHORITY to torture. He can torture, and then face the fucking justice system, and have his actions reviewed by a fucking jury, and if it turns out he tortured innocent people for no reason, then he’s a criminal who needs to spend the rest of his life in jail. > > The fact that your boss told you it was OK to torture people–that the torture was approved, and judged legal by a team of torture lawyers? Yeah, how’d that defense work at Nuremberg? Eloquently put, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/495 "2014-12-11T17:01:18Z")
“The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.” Napoleon ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/496 "2014-12-11T17:07:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Bolding mine.** And it seems to be necessary as it conflicts with the position you hold. It not only did what IV does, but it had an ancillary benefit, i.e., ending water refusal. And subsequently the need to forcibly administer IV. I think you’re over looking the benefit of reducing the number of encounters of soldier-doctors with needles forcing their will upon a hostile enemy. Also, I’m not sure of the distinctions between IV and “force-feeding”. Don’t know if administering an IV renders "force feeding moot, or if there is benefit to the force feeding. There seems to be. That said, I think I’d rather have a suppository type thing shove up my butt than having a tube forced down my mouth or nose. It appears to be, oddly, much less invasive. Who woulda thunk that anal rape had the ancillary benefit of making people try to avoid being anally raped, so much that they won’t refuse water. Makes it worthwhile. It’s awesome that so many people (not necessarily you , magellan01) would think the government is inept when handling taxes, building a budget, enforcing laws, but feel comfortable with the same goverment torturing. “I’m sure they know what they are doing.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/497 "2014-12-11T17:23:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, but that’s not the same for everyone. Some people might be able to spend all day in there and not freak out. I have an phobia so strong that I don’t even share it, lest someone find out and use it against me. (Hey, you can’t be too safe!) But your answer proves my point that you can’t necessarily simply look at a method and say “torture”. You have to look at duration, judge the person’s tolerance, etc. It seems that you’re arguing that nothing can be classified as torture without examining each individual circumstance. That makes it incredibly easy to classify any given scenario as “not torture”, because unless we can interview the victim, we can’t ask him if they actually like that kind of thing. In short, it seems like just a way to get out of being accused of torture. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/498 "2014-12-11T17:24:40Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The fact that we actually have people defending this shit and trying to conflate it with military training convinces me that for some, there is literally nothing the U.S. government could do, especially under the administration of their preferred party, that would not be defensible. Wrong. There is quite a lot that I would object to government doing. For example, applying the same techniques described to US citizens. I am sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but applying severe physical pressure to a very limited number of enemy combatants in order to extract information is just not something I am very worried about. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/499 "2014-12-11T17:26:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Wrong. There is quite a lot that I would object to government doing. For example, applying the same techniques described to US citizens. I am sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but applying severe physical pressure to a very limited number of enemy combatants in order to extract information is just not something I am very worried about. They’re not all enemy combatants, and it doesn’t extract information. They tortured their own spies, remember? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773/500 "2014-12-11T17:27:18Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Wrong. There is quite a lot that I would object to government doing. For example, applying the same techniques described to US citizens. I am sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but applying severe physical pressure to a very limited number of enemy combatants in order to extract information is just not something I am very worried about. Just to be clear, are you saying we should change the law to allow that? Because it’s not currently legal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-senate-torture-report/706773.md?page=26)