Editorial: Defining “what is ‘is’”: Defining Torture by the Bush Administration

First, read the May 10 2005 “MEMO FOR JOHN A. RIZZO
SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY” written by Steven G, Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Reading through this document, I am absolutely disgusted with Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, the CIA and those in the Bush administration who allowed these permissions to be carried out. This document about what is and is not torture is like an attempt to define "what is 'is' " and is clearly based on conflict of interest and secondary gain and not a scholarly and unbiased use of semantics. Moreover, since severe pain and suffering, set as the hallmarks of torture, is an experiential event and whether an act produces severe pain and suffering is or is not torture is not some philosophical exercise to be debated over a table. As an experiential event which involves ones sensations and emotions and since torture even of one individual is illegal both in the U.S. and the world, certainly "I know it when I experience it" would be the proper definition of torture.

When one is really troubled to define "severe pain" or "severe suffering", has anyone suggested an empirical approach by those who want to really know the answer? Mr. Bradbury, did you allow the interrogators to have the techniques attempted on you, yourself? How about you folks in the CIA or administration, who wanted an ethical and legal answer, did you subject yourselves to these techniques? If you did, then you would really know the answer to the how to define "severe" pain and suffering.

And taxpayers actually pay for preparing such legal nonsense--disgusting! Anyway, that is my opinion.. what is yours? ..Maurice.