It is difficult to determine what constitutes a “harsh,” “high pressure,” or “enhanced” technique. All of these terms have been used by political leaders when they have discussed how to interrogate suspected terrorists, with perhaps “harsh” the most frequent term. For example, in 2004 the CIA suspended self-described “enhanced interrogation techniques." “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” according to an unnamed CIA official, are “stress positions,” “light and noise bombardment,” “sleep deprivation,” denial of pain medication,” and what was called “feigned drowning” or what has become known as waterboarding.

The Human Rights First and Physicians Against Torture organizations co-authored a report about the use of enhanced “enhanced” techniques used by the CIA but their report did not specifically define the term. Despite this, the report gave examples of “enhanced” techniques that included “water-boarding (sic), hitting, induced hypothermia, and stress positions, total and long-term isolation, and constant bombardment with loud music and flashing lights.” Their report emphasized that tactics that do not leave physical marks, like many of the “enhanced” techniques, are none-the-less torture and in violation of U.S. and international law. Rejali, author of a history of torture and democracy, calls this “clean torture” because of the absence of marks and the fact that this treatment does not “fit” commonly held ideas about what constitutes torture. Andrew Sullivan found that the term “enhanced interrogation” comes from the German Verscharfe Vernehmung, a phrase used in a Nazi interrogation methods memo (1937) that suggests practices, similar to those endorsed by the CIA, to break uncooperative subjects.

To add to the confusion, a recent Washington Post article covered the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes depicting the questioning of two of Osama Bin Laden's reputed lieutenants. The Washington Post described the content of the tapes as examples of "harsh" interrogation methods. During the Republican presidential candidate debate in South Carolina, the candidates used a number of terms when discussing techniques that go beyond those formally authorized for use in interrogations, including “every method but torture,” “enhanced interrogation techniques, “very high pressure techniques,” and, to “respond in a way to make them [terrorists] fearful.” In response to the remarks of the other candidates, Representative Ron Paul of Texas stated, “it’s interesting talking about torture here in that it’s become enhanced interrogation techniques. It sounds like Newspeak (sic).” To Paul and many others, the words “enhanced techniques” mean torture.