Posted 7:54 AM by steve

In the days after 9/11, there was some talk that our habit of freely using the word 'hero' in describing run of the mill activity diminished the true heroism of the firefighters who went into the WTC and those in the military who risk their lives trying to protect us from our enemies.

The same was said of the overuse of the word 'holocaust' in describing events that, while certainly unpleasant, simply did not rise to the level of the German attempt to exterminate the Jews and other 'undesirables' during WWII.

By throwing around the words 'hero' and 'holocaust' so freely, we not only diminished the significance of real heroism and the Holocaust, we also elevated run of the mill activity to a level those activities simply did just earn.

Well.... I think the same is happening with the word 'torture'. To me, torture is not simply being unpleasant to someone, it is causing them extreme pain and for no purpose other than satisfying the sadistic urges of the 'torturer'.

Unfortunately, critics of the Bush Administration have succeeded in defining 'torture' down by labeling as torture pretty much everything that makes a detainee unhappy. And even worse, the Bush Administration has now thrown in the towel by agreeing to define torture down.

This isn't about whether one feels we should use 'torture' to gain information to prevent terrorist attacks, it is about using the word properly. Cutting off a detainee's testicles or fingers is torture, sticking him in a cold room isn't. Sticking a broomstick up their rear end is torture, taking away their clothes isn't. Beating them with baseball bats is torture, keeping them up at night isn't. Not tucking them into a warm bed with a full tummy isn't torture, nor is flushing a Koran down a toilet.