re: #211 EmmmieG

I’m not sure sure there is an actual International agreement.

No, there isn’t. There’s no formal definition of what constitutes torture in the US, either. Here is an area where our Legislators have completely dropped the ball, because none of them wants to sign off on permitting techniques that may be repugnant to a majority of reasonable people, or which may lead to criticism at a later date that investigators were prevented from exercising all means of extracting information.

And yet, such a definition is precisely what is needed at this juncture, one that is detailed enough to prevent the use of techniques falling under it and to secure the prosecution of anyone who uses them in the future. A clear, unambiguous definition of what is permitted and what is not ought to be a simple matter to debate and craft.

But it won’t be, because politicians are fundamentally craven, and the current ambiguity allows one side to claim that the other committed “torture” under the nebulous, almost non-existent definition that currently exists, while allowing the other side to claim that they didn’t, by appealing to that same fuzziness and lack of clarity. It’s an appalling failure of legislators to do the very job they were elected to perform, and instead turn such a serious matter into yet another political football.