There's something about torture that drives progressives wild. I think I figured out what it is. The word "torture" is ambiguous. Here is the second of three meanings provided by Merriam-Webster: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." Three purposes are mentioned: punishment, coercion, and sadistic pleasure. When progressives think of torture, they think of Abu Ghraib, where American military personnel did various things to horrify, frighten, and humiliate captured Iraqis. Remember the images of draped men, leashed men, naked men, and snarling dogs? One can easily view this as sadism, no different in principle from plucking the wings off flies or setting a cat afire, and since those victimized by it were presumably pained (though arguably not "intensely"), it counts as torture according to the dictionary definition.
The problem is that when torture is being discussed as a policy, the purpose is not sadistic, or even punitive; it is coercive. The aim is to extract information. There is no reason why those doing the torturing should derive pleasure from it. Indeed, they almost certainly view it as a necessary evil. They do their jobs solemnly and conscientiously, keeping their objective firmly in mind. Do you suppose that when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, those performing the action got pleasure from it? That's ridiculous, not to mention insulting. They had a job to do and were doing it. They were trying to save lives, not get their jollies.
My point is that there's a disconnect between progressives and conservatives when it comes to torture. When progressives hear the word "torture," they think Abu Ghraib, sadism, and humiliation; conservatives think about saving lives by extracting information from those unwilling to supply it voluntarily. To progressives, torture is a gratuitous evil; to conservatives, it is a necessary evil. Progressives assimilate torture to plucking the wings off flies; conservatives assimilate it to self-defense or defense of others.
If I'm right about this, then the so-called debate about torture hasn't been a debate at all. The antagonists have been passing one another like ships in the night. Each uses the word "torture," which makes it appear as though they are engaged, but the word is being used in different senses, to pick out different acts and motives.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 