The debate over the United States policy of torture has been triggered once again, this time when the New York Times published a front-page story regarding the issue last month.

The New York Times piece titled "Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations," revealed secret State Department memos from 2005 approving interrogation measures such as head slapping, simulated drowning and freezing temperatures.

The article should really be in the opinion section, considering the document is filled with biased remarks regarding the Bush administration.

The article also failed to include the real problem regarding torture. The real problem is that recent lenient use of the term is contributing to its dilution.

Defining torture

President Bush quickly responded to the report and insisted, "This government does not torture people."

In order to sort the two sides out, one must ask with an unbiased, open mind: What is the difference between torture and harsh, but humane, interrogation techniques? How far can we go? Are there any extreme circumstances in which we can bend the rules in order to save other lives? And most importantly, what is at stake if we discontinue coercive interrogation techniques?

There is a difference, and not a fine line, but a vast differentiation between "torture" and "inhuman or degrading treatment."

The New York Times qualifies "slaps to the head," as among one of the Bush Administration's "brutal" methods. Notice that they are "slaps to the head" rather than "beatings" or even "punches" to the head. This does not fall under the definition of torture.

While other examples can more easily be considered as torture, such as being placed in a 50 degree Fahrenheit room, being "battered by thundering rock music" is frankly, not one of them. Since when does listening to any genre of music qualify as torture?

Deprivation of sleep is also pushing it a bit too far. To say such methods qualify as torture is insulting to victims of real torture methods, such as those held by Iraqi insurgents, those of the Holocaust or World War II Japanese internment camps.

Being starved to near death, pushing bamboo under one's fingernails, beating someone forcefully-those are torturous methods. Those methods cause permanent and extreme physical pain. The accepted interrogation methods by the Bush Administration are simply not.

Torture is categorized by very cruel and grave methods of inflicting pain on someone. Such interrogation techniques as waterboarding, lies far from that. If waterboarding is torture, then why do CIA agents subject themselves to the method?

The high stakes

America hasn't suffered any more terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, and there are many instances of when U.S. CIA officials have saved lives, but why would our left-wing mass media publish that? Those reports certainly don't help the anti-war movement, and thus are not publicized as much as they should be.

The landmark 1978 decision laid down by the European Court of Human Rights set a benchmark regarding torture in the care of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, (which dealt with Britain's treatment of members of the Irish Republican Army). By maintaining the "distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment,'" the European Court sought to preserve the "special stigma [attached] to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering."

Once we loosen and broaden the definition of torture, we allow for any interrogation technique to be rendered illicit. When our interrogators are severely limited in their techniques, they won't gain the life-saving information essential in a time of war.

Personally, I believe even one human life lost by a terrorist attack is more than America can afford in the War on Terror.

I wholeheartedly believe the potential threat to innocent lives is more than a sufficient reason to use coercive interrogation techniques against confirmed or suspected terrorists. If the clock could be turned back to the morning of September 11, and US officials had Mohamed Atta in possession, would the use of coercive interrogation techniques be worth it? I believe the rescue of 2,974 lives qualifies as worth it.