The term 'torture', like the term 'pornography', is almost impossibly vague, and that's good news for the team defending the practice because it gives them the scope to pick and choose just what they are willing to defend, without stepping too far outside the 'most reasonable' definition of the word. In broad terms I would categorise torture in two ways (and these always need to be explained in a debate because these terms are contested academically, and in public commentary) 'active' and 'passive' torture.

Passive torture is primarily psychological torture - such as sleep deprivation through environmental manipulation (bright lights, constant loud music/sounds, extreme cold, cramped conditions, 'stress positions', etc) or nutritional restrictions designed to significantly weaken the willpower of a subject (so not starvation, but something pretty close). Reverse treatment, sensory deprivation such as protracted isolation in conditions devoid of stimuli (pitch black, no sound, no communication, etc) can also provoke a similar effect. The idea is to psychologically wear-down the subject to the point of mental (and physical) exhaustion. At this point the subject is said to be far more susceptible to coercion and intimidation, or will simply divulge information to gain respite from the aforementioned treatment.

This is the kind of torture that the Bush Administration has publicly endorsed as acceptable, although they say its acceptable because it is not torture - which they define as "only acts that produce organ failure, impairment of bodily function or death". This 'minimalist' approach to torture was condemned recently by the US Justice Department which issued an expanded definition of acts that constitute torture under US domestic and international law - which does not necessarily need to cause excruciating or agonising pain, and can include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. [1]

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that passive torture violates the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which broadly defines torture as "the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish". [2] Luckily for President Bush, the US never ratified (or to the best of my knowledge even signed) that convention. But Bush should be bound by the US Bill of Rights, and the final part of Amendment XIII seems relevant: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".

While the terms "cruel and unusual" might provoke some disagreement in regards to passive torture, the second type of torture neatly fits any objective description. Active torture is the next step beyond passive torture in that it specifically includes acts of physical violence (beatings, electrocutions, and strangulation... I think you get the idea). The White House admits that some of these things are torture, and argues that some are not - for example a beating would appear to be acceptable under the previously mentioned White House definition so long as it's limited and doesn't cause lasting harm.

While the delineation of acts between active and passive might be convenient for a debate (in that I would think it advisable for teams to rule out defending active torture and limit the debate to passive torture - which is bad enough) there are some common practices that defy such categorisation. One commonly reported technique is known as "water-boarding" which is described in various ways, but is basically where a shackled prisoner is very nearly drowned, or least led to believe that they are very close to being drowned. [3] It's clearly psychological torture (since no actual physical harm is necessarily part of the technique), but passive torture is designed to break people's spirit - to break their will to resist through mental exhaustion - and thereby make them more cooperative. Water-boarding however is simply designed to provoke abject terror which, with humourless irony, is precisely the crime these prisoners are 'suspected' of plotting to commit themselves...

Of course there are also the well documented atrocities of Abu Ghraib, including the humiliation of detainees through forced or simulated sexual acts (often photographed or filmed to maximise the dehumanisation), mock assassinations, the use of vicious dogs to intimidate prisoners and the list goes on. None of these neatly fit in the active/passive box, but then again no team with half a brain would allow them to be part of their definition of the debate. Nevertheless these acts, and many others, are the reality of torture in the modern age.

If techniques like water-boarding seem far-fetched, or the product of conspiracy theorist websites and publications, then consider two things.

The first fact is that during her recent Senate confirmation hearings, in-coming Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was questioned at length regarding her views on torture. Given that Condi had earlier expressed a desire to set the record straight on all the propaganda being spread about the US in the Middle East, this was a perfect chance for her to clearly say that torture doesn't happen. But, she dodged every question and refused to rule it out. She even refused to state categorically that "water boarding" is torture. [4]

Condi did say that the Justice Department should be asked for the legal definition of torture, but surely any idiot can tell you that water-boarding is torture. More disturbing is that report by the New York Times that the White House secretly arranged for Congress to overturn a near unanimous Senate vote that would have restricted 'extreme' interrogation methods. [5]

Secondly, examine this month's report by Chile's special commission investigating the crimes of the Pinochet government. The commission found that torture was a habitual practice of the military and police, and common practices included repeated beatings, electric shocks and mock executions. For female prisoners the list also regularly included incredibly perverse acts such as being raped by specially trained dogs, or being forced to bare the children of torturers.

The report also reveals that what was once the prevailing defence issued by Pinochet supporters (and Bush after Abu Ghraib) - namely that the torturers were just a few bad apples - was rubbish, and that the practice of torture became widespread and institutionalised. [6] Given that the White House is now effectively drawing up a guide of approved interrogation practices, basically things they believe they can argue aren't torture but all of which were found to be so by the Chilean Commission, its hard to see how torture in the US isn't becoming institutionalised and increasingly widespread.

Generally speaking I hate the 'slippery slope' argument (i.e. that because we allow one thing, then increasingly more and more things will be allowed) because it's usually a desperate, stupid and illogical, argument. But in the case of torture it seems appropriate given the worrying trend that is emerging. While the Abu Ghraib scandal may make the Pentagon and White House a little more careful about the activities conducted in high-profile locations, it is precisely the activities in the low-profile places that should cause the most concern.

Late last year Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray was recalled to London after criticising Tashkent's use of torture on terror suspects. He alleged that the CIA and MI6 were given access to the information generated through torture and accepted it despite the illegal methods used to obtain the intelligence. [7] It would seem that the US (and its allies like Britain and unfortunately Australia most likely too) are either too squeamish or too concerned about Abu Ghraib style scandals to commit the worst acts of torture themselves, but they have no concern about legitimating those acts preformed by others if it advances their cause.

Because the US refuses to take a clear, principled stance against the use of torture as a method of gathering intelligence, it gives a green light to every two-bit quasi-democratic/mostly authoritarian regime in the world (Pakistan, Uzbekistan... other 'Stans) to avoid criticism for using even more horrific techniques than Americans can stomach, as long as they feed the Pentagon "actionable intelligence". The slippery slope is already happening and there is no reason for it to stop now.