Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been to Europe seeking to quell a rising storm about the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former prisoner of war, has introduced legislation in the Senate that would outlaw the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of people in U.S. custody.

And, despite evidence to the contrary, President Bush has said that the United States does not torture and has threatened to veto any legislation that would outlaw “aggressive interrogation techniques.” Much of the debate focuses on semantics about what it actually means to “torture.” Before the current political sandstorm obliterated the meaning of the word, most people likely understood, on some level, what kind of treatment constituted torture.

A Justice Department memo from 2002 narrowed the government’s definition, saying that methods that might cause pain just short of “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death” would not be considered torture. The president was also advised to opt-out of the Geneva Conventions, which contain a more restrictive definition.

What do you think?

Below, are pictures from Abu Ghraib, the prison in Iraq where U.S. military and CIA personnel are known to have mistreated prisoners. Similar tactics have been used in a series of covert prisons recently exposed by The Washington Post. Underneath each picture, is a description of a type of treatment that has been called into question.

Would these practices constitute torture in your value system? Are they justified in the War on Terror? Tell us what you think.

Two scenarios are sometimes used to justify aggressive interrogation or torture. The “Ticking Time Bomb” and the “Slow Fuse.” Some commentators have argued that under particular circumstances, it would be appropriate to violate anti-torture laws.

The “Ticking Time Bomb” goes something like this: Terrorists have planted a nuclear bomb in a city; one of the conspirators have been captured and knows where the bomb is.

Under those conditions, would you change your mind about the answers above?

In the “Slow Fuse” situation, a high-level terrorist planner is captured. He has significant information about the structure of the terror organization and future operations, but there is no known immediate threat.

Under those conditions, would you change your mind about the answers above?

The Sun Journal wants to know what you think. Readers can mail their responses to: David Farmer, editorial page editor, 104 Park St., P.O. Box 4400, Lewiston, ME 04243; e-mail to [email protected]; or respond online at www.sunjournal.com. Please submit your responses by Friday, Dec. 23.