Quibling about definitions?? You say that torture is morally wrong and would, I assume, want it outlawed but not provide a definition! Somewhat Kafkaesque don't you think?

So Lance Corporal Snuffy is sent to Iraq, engages in a firefight and captures an insurgent. He wants to ask the guy about the other insrugents; a perfectly legal thing to do. But how does he do it? He doesn't know what torture is because you haven't defined it for him. You're asking him to perform a mission that will bring him into contact with the enemy and will, presumably, require him to attempt to elicit information at some point. He knows he can be prosecuted for torturing the insurgent, but he has no idea what torture is. Is it beating the guy (we'd all probably agree to this)? Is it yelling at him (some would probably argue this)?

A clear definition is what avoids a confusing situation; not some amorphous concept that will certainly cause troops to hesitate when hesitation is not warranted or needed. Our guys are smart enough to distinguish between torture and legitimate questioning techniques if provided a clear and proper definition. Leadership needs to provide this definition rather than speaking in tongues by using such terms as "enhanced interrogation techniques."