define:torture

Just gonna put my $0.02 on this. It's fairly clear that: torture lies on a continuum and that people have different sensitivities. Some people don't consider anything torture that doesn't involve genital electrocution, others draw the line at a poorly played piano concerto. For me, eating a peanut is enjoyable, but the movie Firewall built part of its plot over a child's allergy to the legume.

In my life, I was spanked with a belt and slammed into a wall (giving me a black eye) by my self-proclaimed pacifist father. I was beaten up by a gang at my high school. I've been handcuffed, placed in uncomfortable positions, been stripped and had my genitals stared at, by police officers and never found guilty in a court. I've had a gun pointed at my head. I've gone through economic hardship leaving me destitute. I've worked for awful people who've tried to undermine my self esteem. I've been threatened and ostracised for quietly speaking my truth.

Sorry for the big dose of negative, but what I'm trying to say is, "shit happens". It especially happens in war. I suggest that we prosecute every bully in every school in the US who has dished out a swirly before we go after the previous administration for performing the adult equivalent on terrorists. That will never happen because half of the Democratic thugs would be doing time.

I suggest we give the previous administration the benefit of the doubt: that they were acting with the best intentions, and may have erred on the side of being, "too rough on the bad guys". And I back Coulter on partial birth-aborting terrorists instead of American babies (I am pro-choice, but if I had to choose between them ...).

Now, that should end this post, but I want to add a couple tangents. First tangent is the hypocrisy with the Japanese after WWII. The winners make the rules. If the Japanese had won, they would have prosecuted US officials for dropping atom bombs or burning up their civilian's wooden houses. That's one reason why it's very important to win, and why the hate crime bill is in congress right now - if NAMBLA had donated to Barney Frank's re-election campaign like he'd asked, I think you would be seeing different groups protected. If you don't want to prosecuted for water boarding, don't lose an election. The republicans lost, they may be prosecuted - hopefully some day it will work differently.

Second tangent is that the rest of the world right now may believe that the US is/was acting as a world bully/Nazi/asshole. A trial that shows that we can hold ourselves up to our own standards (accountable) may restore some of our credit. The cost/benefit of doing this, the moral quicksand that it presents, and the raw fairness of it escapes me.

Finally, "would they do it to me"? I think this is a question going through the liberal mind right now. They know that conservatives don't like them. They know that the conservatives water boarded one enemy. If I am considered an enemy, will I be water-boarded? And I think this continues from the last, "world view" tangent. Bush once said something like (I'm being lazy), "you're either with us or against us", France was against us, the terrorists were against us, we water-boarded the terrorists, we will water-board the French. But the reality is that enemies also fall on a continuum.

update (5/16/2009):
I realize that the above statements sound "pro torture", but that was not my intent. My goal was to help with the definition of torture. I was suggesting that water boarding might fall in a grey area, where some consider it out of bounds, but others don't; and that I might give our officials a pass if they authorized it. The atrocities at Abu Graib, and the IRF-ing at Gitmo clearly cross that line and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

I also believe the administration must go after low hanging fruit first and both use and set precedence. Since there was a water boarding precedent set in WWII, it's easy to define, it doesn't play an obvious role in subduing immediate prisoner violence, and cannot be confused with a cavity check, it may be the best vector for cleaning up this mess.

I still think (depending on intensity) that I'd rather have my head dunked a few times rather than have chemical irritants shoved in my anus, my eyes poked out, my head slammed repeatedly against concrete (leaving permanent brain damage), etc (follow the link above).

Finally, a hypothetical question. There are two demons and a saint. The saint is not powerful enough to take on either demon, let alone both. Is it ethical to pit the two demons against each other, then destroy the weakened survivor? (two demons: torturers and terrorists; saint: American citizens)