Non-Political Description
The use of non-standard physically-focused interrogation techniques on a detainee for the purpose of weakening or destroying their ability to resist providing the desired answers to questions posed to the detainee.

I am defining a standard interrogation technique as one which is generally accepted as legal by U.S. and international law and is available for use by law enforcement officers.

A non-standard technique is one which is not considered standard but is also not considered torture. There is a legal gray zone between what is clearly defined as torture and what is clearly accepted as a standard technique. This legal gray zone is where “enhanced interrogation techniques” reside. These techniques may be considered cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, but arguably fail to meet the legal definition of torture.

Some of the non-standard interrogation techniques that are being referred to as “enhanced interrogation” by the Bush administration are:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Political Description
The use of interrogation techniques, which do not rise to the level of torture, on terrorists or suspected terrorists in order to extract information that will help avoid or disrupt an attack against American interests or help undermine and destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Political Benefits
Describing something as an “Enhanced Interrogation Technique” hides the fact that the technique is physical in nature and makes it sound like a normal interrogation technique, only more intense.

Is “Enhanced Interrogation” a Euphemism for Torture?
It depends who you ask, what specific technique you are referring to, and how you interpret the the language of the law. Arguably, it is more of a euphemism for cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. To make sense of why I say that, you have follow the Bush administration’s logic detailed below.

Torture as defined in Title 18 Section 2340 of U.S. federal law states:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and

(3) “United States” includes all areas under the jurisdiction
of the United States including any of the places described in
sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

The Bush administration secretly defined torture in 2002 by interpreting the above law in the following manner:

Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340 it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. We conclude that the mental harm also must result from one of the predicate acts listed in the statute (Section 2340) . . . Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture.

The Bush administration publicly redefined torture at the start of 2005 by re-interpreting the law in a manner more consistent with the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) which is ratified by the United States. This redefinition expanded what could constitute torture to include severe suffering and redefining severe pain at a lower threshold than pain equivalent to organ failure. The Bush administration’s redefinition also made a point of stating that only the most extreme forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment amounted to torture and therefore other less-than-extreme forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment would be not be legally considered torture.

There’s a reason why the Bush administration made that point. That’s where the “enhanced interrogation techniques” existed.

Later in 2005, Congress began working on a bill to formally outlaw all cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and the President Bush signed it into law in December of 2005. What President Bush didn’t tell Congress was that before he signed the law into effect, he had requested a secret legal opinion from the Justice Department about whether the enhanced interrogation techniques being used would be illegal under the coming law. Mr. Steven Bradbury, acting Head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, wrote and secretly released a legal opinion stating that even the most severe enhanced interrogation techniques did not qualify as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. According to the New York Times, Mr. Bradbury was

relying on a Supreme Court finding that only conduct that “shocks the conscience” was unconstitutional, the opinion found that in some circumstances not even waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading, if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials familiar with the legal finding said.

The New York Times also published an excellent graphic that clearly outlines the meandering logic of the administration over how it defines torture since 9/11.

Reference Point
Self and others who share same political view. Someone who is subjected to the techniques would not likely refer it as an enhanced interrogation.

History
The euphemism actually originated in Nazi Germany (no kidding) as “Verschärfte Vernehmung” which translates into English as “enhanced interrogation.” Andrew Sullivan wrote an excellent article for The Atlantic magazine describing the origin of the term. More surprising is the similarity of some of the techniques.

Example Usage
The Dallas Morning News:

But in July, after another months-long debate inside the administration, Mr. Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques – the details remain secret – and officials say the CIA again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas. The executive order was reviewed and approved by Mr. Bradbury and the Office of Legal Counsel.