When torture is not torture?

[Ivo Skoric]

Rumsfeld says that the torture at Abu Ghraib was just abuse. Ecclesia 
non cedit sanguinem! - was the motto of the church's inquisition in 
15th century (church does not shed blood). They then also maintained 
that they do not do anything wrong to the people: they were actually 
saving their souls, didn't they? And rack and strappado were so much 
more humane than what secular rulers were doing at that time, weren't 
they?

Besides, the pictures, like the ones from Abu Ghraib, could probably 
be reproduced from any more self-respecting college fraternity hazing 
ritual in the US. So, what's all the fuss about? 

Or take the Fear Factor - just recently I watched an episode in which 
5 young couples were subjected to 36 hours of sleep deprivation, 
during which they had to perform some gruesome tasks, and at the end 
they were to stand on the thin wire high above the sea, keeping their 
balance while holding the rope above with only one hand - the one 
that could hold the position the longest won $50,000 for himself and 
his mate. (ok they were NOT hooded and/or completely nude; the FF 
producers need a Mossad advisor on that a.s.a.p., it will give the 
show more umph...)

In that respect I believe that Abu Ghraib 'contestants' should be 
eligible for some sort of monetary reward for their participation - 
at least those who held the longest, wouldn't that be fair?

ivo