When a topic absolutely boggles my mind I remind myself that I'm looking at it from the perspective of a 60 something year old American woman. Such is the case of the re-emergence this week of interrogation methods approved by our government and how such should be defined.
No one was better at redefining a word than Bill Clinton. The definition of "is". And now it's "torture". Again. The case most used as an example of the need for "harsh" interrogation methods is Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He was credited with being the mastermind of so much evil, I'm tempted to agree that the end, intelligence, such as it is, justifies the means. The problem is anyone who has actually undergone torture says it does not work. John McCain for one. Most likely false information is given. Any organization worth its salt will have a plan b if one of its operatives is captured anyway.
Of course McCain is correct. Khalid confessed to just about everything of which he was accused. Granted, he was more of a bully than a soldier trained to resist. Name, rank and serial number. Or whatever the current strategy is. He cracked like an egg hitting the floor. In the movies Chuck Norris' Colonel Braddock and Sylvester Stallone's Rambo showed super human ability to absorb punishment - torture. Pure fiction. Sure, we cheered them when they decimated the bad guys because the bad guys were so loathsome. In the real world there isn't a human body that could withstand the punishment they both took. Or gave.
Now let's get real and put it in the context of said 60 something year old woman. I'd break before they even had me secured. And I dare say so would 100% of the experts who are debating the semantics and those inflicting the "harsh interrogation". Let's call it what it is. Torture. Should we put it a the test?