a good question, and one that I can't answer using any definition in any dictionary I can find on-line.
For instance, to borrow Kalatzi's above:
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY
define anguish. To some, a ruckmarch is "anguish of body and mind". To others, it's a fun way to spend a Monday morning. For some, a week in the field is "anguish of body and mind". To me, enduring more than a half-hour with most civilians is "anguish of body and mind".
b : something that causes agony or pain
closer, but still too vague. Standing with full kit while race-tracking for an hour, in turbulence, is enough to cause "agony or pain". Drill in scarletts in 40 degree weather can cause "agony or pain". Troops pass out from that, and can take a couple days to recover. Is that 'torture'? Or is that 'good training'?
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
this is closest, but what about the S&M scene? Some of the stuff there is certainly 'punishment', 'coercion'., and supplying 'sadistic pleasure' If we take the first part, though, we come pretty close, to my mind: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding)". Now, again, we can look to the S&M scene (right now, Infanteer is thinking about my real name and a recent google search and laughing his arse off but I digress), some forms of it are 'burning' (cigarettes :
) and 'wounding'.
I think a definition should include the PURPOSE of the physical acts, as well as the results. Permanent damage via "burning, crushing, or wounding", for instance, is well beyond anything I've ever heard about being performed in the S&M scene. S&M is performed for the purpose of mutual pleasure. Torture is performed at the victim's expense. It's involuntary and the damage to body and mind are PERMANENT. And the effects upon the mind are more important, I think, than the effects on the body.
But, here, too we run into problems defining it. You suffer 'permanent effects' from 3 years in the infantry. For the most part, those effects are positive, but the methods used to 'force' those changes on you can be unpleasant in the extreme.
I have yet to see a definition of the term that meets the right criteria, to be honest, and I'm not nearly smart enough to come up with one myself. To me, it comes down to common sense, and that doesn't work, for the same reasons as above. It's all too subjective. Being placed in a stress position for a few hours is part of training, TO ME. For Amnesty International, it's torture.
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING
entirely inapplicable for this context, so I won't go any further.
To me, if something is used by the Army, on it's own troops, it's not torture, no matter who else it's practiced on. Doing it to non-volunteers is repugnant, and worse, counter-productive, but it's hardly torture.
Using hooks and knives, mutilating people, crushing their bones with sand-filled hoses or the many implements designed for that purpose, taking a blow-torch or even cigarette lighter, prolonged starvation...these and similar acts are torture. I have yet to hear of any Western Army employing them in training their own soldiers, or using them to solicit information from others.
Not very scientific, I know, but then, the entire crux of the problem lies therein. All of the definitions I've seen to date are entirely subjective. If anyone else feels they can come up with a definition that takes that entirely out of the equation, I'd very much like to see it.
It's well beyond my abilities.
Iterator,
I didn't really answer your question, but as you can see, I honestly can't.
rmacqueen,
my argument was never with the validity of using such techniques. I've outlined here, and elsewhere, many times, that such actions are stupid, for tactical and strategic reasons, let alone moral and ethical. I just HATE people using the word "torture" to describe actions that are most manifestly NOT torture.
