OT:

I didn’t get an answer to this on the torture thread.

Kenneth made the statement that if the SERE protocols are not torture when applied to American servicemen in training, they are not torture when applied in the same way to detainees at Gitmo. Fair enough.

So:

So, if “enhanced interrogation techniques” la SERE were applied, by the book, with no deviation, doctor standing by, all protocols met to the letter for, say, three days running at eight waterboardings a day in a combat zone by trained professional operatives trying to get the subject to divulge plans for an impending attack on their positions, this would meet the definition of “not torture”, right?

Oh, I forgot, the subject is an American G.I. being interrogated by the enemy. All other factors being equal.

Still not torture?

Or does the side that happens to be using it determine whether a thing is torture or not?