I was using your definition, now you want to move the goal post, change the rules and call new things torture...
Do you not see my point yet? I think you do... why not just admit to it already?
The definition of Torture is subject to interpretation since there is no clear definition of what constitutes torture. Wars are fought by following rules, you gave a definition of torture for your soldiers to follow and they did - then you changed your mind upon seeing some of the tactics that escaped your definition. So you change the rules to fit your sensitivities but still failed to specifically outline what is and is not acceptable methodology for interrogation.
I agree. There is a better way to go about all 3....
The War On Drugs has clear definitions and rules for our Law Officers to follow and those rules and definitions rarely change. We don't give a crap about a drug dealers civil rights and the drug dealer is an American Citizen. On Cops you can see police overpowering suspects, using pain to coerce subjects into submission - As long as it happens in America to Americans, we don't call it torture. Put the same Americans overseas overpowering a suspect in Iraq, using pain to coerce him into submission - suddenly we're engaging in torture.
So you would leave it to the prisoner as to what constitutes torture?
I can tell you right now, anything short of sending them home would be claimed to be painful coercion and deemed torture... So now what do you do?
