You might want to catch up and actually read the torture report. They went well beyond anything the Justice Department authorized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
The laws against torture define torture in a specific way. So while a lay person may use the word torture one way ("Listening to my wife prattle on about soap is torture"), use of a legally defined word requires precision. Since torture is legally defined, and no one participating in the enhanced interrogation was prosecuted for breaking this law, after being extensively investigated, one can reasonably conclude no torture took place.
Yes, I'm very familiar with that attempt to circumvent the spirit of the law and the well-known definition of several words. John Yoo et al were very creative in their interpretations and new definitions.
> done at the highest levels
Which is why they need to be prosecuted.
> So while a lay person may use the word torture one way ("Listening to my wife prattle on about soap is torture")
You know that we aren't discussing that kind of metaphorical or hyperbolic use.
(side note: it might be a good idea to listen to one's wife instead of calling her interests "torture")
> Since torture is legally defined
Did you even read my list? You should really read the torture report because that "definition" doesn't match what was done by the CIA to their prisoners.
> no one participating in the enhanced interrogation was prosecuted for breaking this law
Yes, that's the problem. Is there any particular reason you don't want the criminals at the CIA to be prosecuted?
> extensively investigated
You mean the investigation that documented how the CIA tortured its prisoners? The one the CIA wanted to suppress?
> one can reasonably conclude no torture took place.
Even if we were to assume your delusional version of the facts, this is a fallacy. Not being prosecuted does not imply no crime took place, as prosecutors choose which cases to pursue. In reality, though, you seem to have a lot of conative dissonance that is causing you to rationalize what you wish the world was like with the contradictory facts of reality.
I strongly suggest actually reading the torture report, and doing more research on the topic, because the rest of the world doesn't really have problems with the definition of "torture". What the CIA did defiantly counts, and the people involve - all the way up to the people that issued the orders - need to be prosecuted for their crimes. History will not look kindly on us as a country that allows people to get away with barbaric acts like torture.
Crucially, the CIA's aggressive covering up says something about the perceived risk of the public and legislature knowing fully about this.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/09/dispatches-still-no-just...
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-p...
None of the above made what happened anything less than a perversion of justice and an ass-covering redefinition of words. They can do it, and they can often do it legally, but that doesn't excuse any of it, and most people aren't fooled.
Shortly after 9/11, I came out against this "enhanced interrogation" and said it's torture. I was down-voted to oblivion, which makes me sad.
Now this guy is doing the opposite and being down-voted to oblivion, which makes me happy.
Just out of curiosity, what forum was this?
Aside from that, you're misrepresenting how the torture was designed. The way they defanged the Geneva Convention was not by making sure their interrogations were not torturous, but by interpreting it such that the victims were not subject to the protections of the convention.
Additionally, the convention doesn't define torture. So there's that.
But yes, the Guardian is known for being biased against torture.