Most of you have probably already noticed this, but so long as the mainstream media doesn't get it, it is worth going over one more time. With the release of John Yoo's 2003 memo to the Defense Department regarding interrogation, the press has once again adopted euphemistic language to cover up what was actually approved. The New York Times liked the phrasing "harsh interrogation methods," while the Washington Post preferred "aggressive interrogation practices." But we all know what this really means. It seems that the media doesn't really get it.

So, for their sake at least, here's a primer on what was authorized by Yoo and what it really is. I will refer to the memo through simple cites, e.g. Memo 25 would refer to page 25.

Method:
Simple Assault: For the non-lawyers, the simple assault essentially means making someone think that you are about to hit them through some means other than words. (Memo 24-25). An example would be cocking a fist.

Is it Torture? In so far as torture involves actually causing pain, we can't count this. However, there is essentially no utility to simple assault from an interrogation perspective unless you are willing to carry out the implied threat or unless you have already done so. Simple assault is unlikely to be effective against people unless you actually hit them or unless you have already hit them. It would also cover any action taken that would threaten any bodily harm, not just physical beating. So, this may quite reasonably be a precursor to torture or used in the course of torture to threaten the victim.

Method:
Physical Assault: This includes actual beating the person being interrogating, using weapons on them, or causing serious bodily harm. (Memo 25-30).

Is it Torture? Yes. There's no real ground here for arguing otherwise.

Method:
Changes to Detainee's Cell Environment: Yoo specifically discusses this on page 29 of the Memo in noting that it is not problematic be "no dangerous weapon has been used."

Is it Torture? It depends. This is one area where Yoo's memo is especially sloppy. An "alteration to the cell environment" can mean many different things. It could mean, for example, removing a chair so that the detainee must sit on the floor. That is unlikely to be of significant concern. However, it could also mean making the cell extremely hot or extremely cold. This can be torture.

Method:
Maiming: According to the memo, it is acceptable for interrogators to cut, bit, slit the nose, ear, or lip; to cut out the tongue; to put out or destroy an eye; to cut off a limb or any member of the person being interrogated; or to throw or pour scalding water, acid, or any caustic substance on the person being interrogated.

Is it torture? Do we even need to ask?

Method:
Torture: According to the memo, the anti-torture statute does not apply. The statute specifically prohibits "act[s] committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control. (Memo 36)

Is it torture? Yep.

And that's pretty much all you need to know, really. In discussing the Convention Against Torture, Yoo notes some methods that would be banned under the CAT, but only after first stating that "[a]ny presidential decision to order interrogation methods that are inconsistent with CAT would amount to a suspension or termination of those treaty provisions." So, the specific things that follow, according to Yoo, are not prohibited by the CAT if the President orders it:

-- Administration of mind altering substances.
-- Threatening to kill the person or a third party.
-- Placing needles under a person's fingernails.
-- Application of electrical shocks to the genitals
-- Piercing Eyeballs. (Memo 53)
-- Gouging out eyes
-- Application of molten rubber
-- Use of electrical shocks
-- Cigarette Burns
-- Hanging by hands or feet. (Memo 53, note 55)

Guess what, everybody--that's torture. The problem, however, is that these are just examples of the sorts of things that the CAT was supposed to prohibit. It is not an exhaustive list, and by Yoo's reasoning any similar action, if authorized by the President, would not violate our treaty obligations.

While we're here, let's clear up a couple more issues:

1. "Waterboarding" is torture and it is not "simulated." We don't really know what we have done to the detainees who were "waterboarded," because that information has yet to be released to the public. Most reports describe it as putting a cloth in or over the detainees mouth and then pouring water into the face. At least one report described what happened as covering the face with plastic wrap so that the detainee could not breath and then pouring water over the face.

Let's be clear, though, this is torture no matter what happened. In both instances, the point is to partially asphyxiate the detainee. Doing so causes pain, and continuing to do it for a long enough period will kill the person. If water is poured into the lungs, it is not simulated drowning. It is actual drowning.

2. "Stress positions" are torture. Forcing someone to sit, stand, or lie perfectly still for extended periods of time, or forcing them into contorted positions for significant periods of time is torture. It will cause severe pain. Over time, even simple forced standing leads to the swelling of the feet and ultimately kidney failure.

So, the big picture here once again for the benefit of the mainstream media, is that this is torture. It is not enhanced interrogation techniques, or harsh methods, or aggressive practices. It is torture. Time to stop covering this up.