What defines torture?

Foucalt once argued that somewhere in the late 19th century corporal punishment had been replaced by a solitary "mental anguish".
Similar arguments then also claim that "breaking on the wheel" represented royal central power, and later powers would be more divisive.
What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" to the US power? Paddling, drowning, whipping or "rendition"?
Where does cruelty begin, and torture end?
Please illustrate the reply where possible.

reply to post by halfoldman

I think modern Christians excuse the beating of boys with the Bible, yet the old testament allows 40 lashes for adults. So how about IT SINNING ADULTS? Why just justify the assault of children?
Is that torture?

Torture would be without apparent reason, or at least for the sole purpose of inflicting pain without reason. Corporal punishment is not supposed to be about inflicting unnecessary pain for no apparent reason, rather to teach (harshly) through consequence. The difference between the two are as black and white.

reply to post by quackers

I totally disagree. Torture is to extract information.
The problem is that tortured people will say anything, so any culture that does this in modern times knows it is wasting its time.
However, torture and punishment do send out mixed signals sometimes.

reply to post by quackers


To clarify: any use of torture currently is known to be ineffective and is not aimed at getting any kind of truth!
So why the whole US-Muslim extremist co-operation? Why the whole rigmarole that is unprovable before civil court?

Torture is the purposeful act of subjecting an unwilling recipient to pain and anguish which you control and the recipient cannot avoid.

The reason for carrying out the act is not relevant to what torture is.

If you connect the two, you get into the whole nonsense of 'justifying' it.