The Myth of "Torture Lite"

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the phrase "torture lite" has often appeared in public discourse, used by journalists, military intelligence personnel, and academics in discussions about the justifiability of the use of torture in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, torture Ute (and related terms, such as "enhanced interrogation" and "stress and duress" ) has been used to distinguish between the traditional concept of torture, which we think of as violent, physically mutilating, and brutal, and certain interrogation methods that are, it is claimed, less severe, more restrained, and physically less violent. For example, Joseph Lelyveld in the New York Times argued for this distinction, and claimed further that torture Ute techniques might be permissible;3 Mark Bowden in the Atlantic Monthly argued that such techniques might be justified to fight terrorism;4 and U.S. Naval InteUigence Officer Wayne Madsen, when interviewed in the Guardian, claimed that only torture lite (and not torture) was being used by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.5

However, despite the frequency with which the term is used, the distinction between torture and torture lite is not one that is recognized in any of the international conventions dealing with torture, and it does not directly refer to the distinction that is made in international conventions between torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Why, then, has the phrase "torture lite" become part of the public discourse on torture?

WHAT IS TORTURE LITE?

The phrase "torture lite" is used to refer to a range of techniques that, unlike more traditional forms of torture, do not physically mutilate the victim's body. Such techniques commonly include extended sleep deprivation, forced standing (also known as stress positions), isolation, manipulation of heat and cold, noise bombardment, personal humiliation, and mock execution. The frequent use of these techniques by democratic governments both now and throughout the past century highlights a difference between the torture methods that democracies tend to favor and those that tend to be used by authoritarian regimes. The fact that torture lite techniques rarely leave clear physical evidence on victims tends to make these techniques particularly useful to democratic states, as these states have a strong interest in maintaining public support and avoiding the attention of human rights organizations - an...