Torture or not

So, is this torture or not? Forcing a terrorist in custody to wear a bra? Leashing a terrorist in custody? Forcing a terrorist in custody to bark like a dog?

I say NO. Degrading? Yes. Acceptable to do to terrorists in custody? Hell Yes! Remember that these scumbags are in violation of the Geneva Convention by not being uniformed combatants among many, many other violations. They do not, nor should they get, Geneva Convention treatments.

Which of these are torture:
**Interrogators telling a terrorist in custody his mother and sisters are whores
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to wear a bra
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to wear a thong on his head
**Telling a terrorist in custody he is homosexual and said other prisoners know it
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to dance with a male interrogator
**Subjecting a terrorist in custody to strip searches with no security value
**Threatening a terrorist in custody with dogs
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to stand naked in front of women
**Forcing a terrorist in custody onto a leash, to act like a dog
**Keeping a terrorist in custody in solitary confinement for 160 days
**Interrogations of a terrorist in custody for 18 to 20 hours a day, for 48 out of 54 days.

The correct answers: No to all of the above.
Well, the Pentagon is not punishing the Gitmo Prison Cheif. Good.

Military investigators examining alleged abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they found treatment such as leashing a terror suspect and forcing him to behave like a dog. But they say they found no evidence that there was torture or that senior leaders imposed faulty interrogation policies.

A few individual interrogators and military personnel are facing punishment, but a recommendation by investigators to admonish the former prison commander because of the treatment of one prisoner was overruled by a senior general.

In all, the findings track what the Bush administration has said, and what subsequent military self-investigations have found: The excesses with prisoners were the work of a few mid- or low-level personnel acting beyond their authority.

Investigators assigned to look into FBI agents' allegations of abuse at Guantanamo presented their findings to the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday.

Uh oh. Now the Senate is involved.
Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-MA):

"I am deeply concerned about the failure - indeed, outright refusal - of our military and civilian leaders to hold higher-ups accountable for the repeated reports of abuse and torture of the prisoners at Guantanamo,"

Sen. James Inhofe, (R-OK):

wonder[s] "if we're really getting the most out of these detainees." "What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy by the enemy?"

The key quote exactly sums up why this cheif should not be charged with anything.

[they] concluded that Gen. Miller's job did not include monitoring the interrogation so closely and he did not violate any U.S. laws or policies.

That is all that needs to be decided when trying to punish a commander.

Here's the article