Think about it like this: This won’t hurt much from Terry Jones of Monty Python fame.
The March 6 memo, prepared for Mr Rumsfeld explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: if someone “knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith”.
What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only “torture” if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else – such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice – then it is not torture.
Mr Rumsfeld’s memo goes on: “a defendant” (by which he means a concerned parent) “is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control”.
Couldn’t be clearer. If your intention is to extract information, you cannot be accused of torture.
Glad this was made clear after I moved out of my parents house. Look out Cari and Ben.