Apprehension, detention and control are not interrogation. You seem confused as usual. Try again.
No, you are the one who is confused.
I ask what your definition of torture is, and reply anything that inflicts pain.
I point out routine police work falls under that definition and you need a better defintion. ANd you punk out and deflect to something else.
See the problem here?
My definition, which is still plain to see, had you the guts, integrity and smarts to do so, say torture is using physical pain as a means of interrogation.
You, confused and befuddled as you usually are, are trying to put words ion my mouth at best, demonstrating an acute lack of comprehension at worst.
Try again.
OK. Let's go with that. So about half of what the CIA did was not physical torture at all. Keeping people awake. Pretending to threaten to kill them. Pretending to threaten their families. Nothing physical there. Are you OK with that?
You are in a rhetorical minefield, ain't ya? The last thing you want to address is the ACTUAL TORTURE. Water boarding, probes inserted, mock executions. Dance around, simpleton, dance! You don't have what it takes to discuss the actual torture because either you know in whatever recesses of your being you keep your honesty, it was indeed torture. Or you are too dense to comprehend what torture really is.
I'll leave it to others to make that determination on their own. It should not be tough for anyone with more guts than you.