Again with the Torture

Today Victoria Toensing notes that critics of the torture memos haven’t read them.

I wouldn’t go that far.

I haven’t read them either, yet I knew this:

The Bush administration decided to put their heads together and unblur that incredibly blurry line about what exactly is torture.
……..What exactly is the definition? “Something that causes agony or pain”.
And what exactly is agony?? Vs discomfort or fear??
These terms are subjective. The UN Convention Against Torture:

“torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted.”

“Severe” What is that??

George W. Bush and his administration decided to delineate and talk about these terms. They determined that what they did was “enhanced” interrogation, and not torture.

Which is basically what Ms Toensing is saying:

The law’s definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means “severe physical or mental pain or suffering,” which in turn means “prolonged mental harm,” which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting “severe physical pain or suffering.” What is “prolonged mental suffering”? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.

It’s not that critics haven’t read the memos, it’s that they are either imagining completely different memos than what has been shared in the major newspapers, or they don’t have any sort of basic reasoning capacity.

Jeff Goldstein sees the hijacking of language again, and I don’t disagree at all.

Read David Ignatius today too. He lets Pelosi know his thoughts.