To Christie Pesavento ("Torture is in the eye of the beholder," April 21):
In your most recent column, you presume that the United States should not torture to acquire intelligence, then argue that the interrogation methods specified in the newly released memos written by Bush's Justice Department "are hardly the equivalent of torture." Your argument, however, is flawed in that it is an argument as to what constitutes torture, but fails to define torture. Since you seem to have trouble defining what torture is, as most people do, I offer you a chance at redemption.
I will give you the chance to decide if the interrogation methods the CIA has been using for years constitute torture, only if you undergo the methods yourself. By your description of these interrogation techniques, this should be just like walking down the halls of your high school and/or going for a swim. First, the CIA operatives must deprive you of sleep for the maximum number of days the memos specify is allowed (11). That shouldn't be a problem since most college students regularly pull multiple all-nighters, right? Then you must undergo slapping to your face and stomach by CIA operatives, then stand in a cold room for hours while you are periodically doused with even colder water. Finally, you will be waterboarded, but don't worry, the memos say that a doctor will be present in case you need an emergency tracheotomy.
Only after you undergo these "enhanced interrogation techniques," will I lend your argument any credence whatsoever.
Marc Jiorle
sophomore
Siegfried Hall
April 21
