The New York Times reported Oct. 4 that secret opinions containing descriptions and justifications of CIA interrogation methods were written by the Justice Department after it denounced the use of torture.

The New York Times stated that one of the opinion memos cited “head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures” as methods used that didn’t constitute torture. The Bush administration has said the CIA does not use methods that violate standards set by Congress, which has outlawed the use of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

The memos have not been released for public viewing.

David Saldana, attorney and adjunct assistant professor of journalism and communication, said the current administration was simply changing the definition of torture.

“You can call a pig an elephant, but it doesn’t make it so,” he said.

Saldana said the types of methods being used “shock [his] conscience.” He said torture was not a partisan issue, and it is the American people’s job to hold government officials accountable for their actions.

Alex Tuckness, assistant professor of political science, said laws defining torture need to remain ambiguous, because, if there are specific do’s and don’ts, people will come up with more creative ways to violate the law.

Tuckness said instead of trying to define torture, it would be more helpful to “have serious discussion on what types of practices are legitimate or immoral.”

Barbara Mack, attorney and associate professor of journalism and communication, said the problem with torture is that it is not a black-and-white issue and it’s hard to distinguish between real torture and interrogation methods used for “intense questioning.”

In 2002, a separate memo written by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated “the President’s power to detain and interrogate enemy combatants arise out of his constitutional authority as commander in chief.” The memo also stated that applying treaties, most specifically the Convention Against Torture, that place limits on what the President can and cannot do in time of war, infringe on his constitutional rights.

The memo went on to express the opinion that “Congress can no more interfere with a president’s conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield.”

“This nation does not give power from chief executive to set aside international human right laws and our relation to torture” Mack said. “Treaties must be approved by U.S. Congress, and the chief executive does not have the power to set aside that vote.”

Mack said if the president is using his constitutional powers to OK torture, he is just as responsible for the torture as those who perform it.

“U.N. resolutions against torture are on par with the Constitution.” Saldana said. “The Bush administration is breaking the law and not being held accountable.”