Wikipedia has a pretty good treatment of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

I, and I am sure others, were waterboarded at SERE school. That was a highly controlled environment that was fully monitored by doctors and psychiatrists, and as such, we knew we wouldn't die or even suffer any serious harm. It was done because the enemy might do it. We, of course, wouldn't because it was against international law and we knew the N. Vietnamese did not sign up for the Geneva Accords. Our moral standards are such that we would not murder prisoners....bu t we have...and these are official findings.

If we lose our moral high ground, we lose our soul as a country. Torture is not America...at least I hope not.

Moral standards ... that's a righteous shield to stand behind, especially when you have no skin in the game. But, allow me to break some crystal for a moment. I was a Geneva Card holder for 25 years. I read the classics, Tsun Tsu, Clausewitz, etc... and I get it. I have a real problem with Yon's absolute position - waterboarding is torture and morally wrong. Well Mike, so is war! Does that mean we shouldn't fight when we've been attacked or when war has been declared on us and attacks continue despite our civilized Kantian desire for dialogue? I hear an awful lot of jaw boning about how bad America is and how evil we are. I don't hear much about American goodness. I'm not an evil person and I've stuck my Hobbsian neck out on a few occasions to save the life of another! I'm pretty tired of the people who say "war is immoral' when going to war may well be the only moral thing to do when evil surrounds and commits to killing innocents! Same for the people who have no real responsible position of authority (life and death decisions) who think they know better than those living life and death decisions everyday! Let me ask...if you knew several US cities would go down in a WMD attack and the terrorist you have in custody knows the plan, would you play patsy with him and watch your America brothers and sisters go up in nuclear flame? You have 30 seconds - GO!... By the way, I would include other forms of interrogation in addition to waterboarding to squeeze answers out of any scum terrorist who seeks the deaths of my beloved fellow Americans. You've seen goodness and you've seen evil...who gets a pass today? Let's not give away the farm. The enemy has only to strike once but, we have to defend 100% of the time. Who has the advantage? Let's not show all of our cards! Sometimes you have to wrap the truth in a lie to overcome evil. I'm all over that.

Michael, you write: "According the United States Government, water boarding is in fact torture."

I read the linked article and found no statement to this effect. The article only shows that waterboarding has been regarded as torture _in the past_ and _by certain courts_. But citing cases in military courts from WWII or even decades ago, and citing cases from _civil_ courts, does _not_ show that waterboarding is _currently_ prohibited as torture under _current_ law in _military_ jurisdiction. Don't misunderstand me: I'm prepared to be shown that it is legally defined as torture by US law in the military jurisdiction and that the Bush administration thereby in fact violated the law; but this article does _not_ show that to be the case.

(I'll also note re: the linked article that if our soldiers really adopted the author's Golden Rule dictum, they'd never fire a shot at the enemy, since no one wants to be shot at themselves. In war, soldiers _have_ to do _lots_ of things unto others that they would not want done unto themselves. In fact, that's not a bad _definition_ of war.)

FYI, what your mom told you (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you), she got from Jesus. Just being a stickler for accurate citations.

Christopher Hitchens volunteered to undergo the treatment and the video is available at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808.

Traditionally, torture has always been about inflicting pain. I suppose you could expand its definition to include psychic pain, but I submit that that is a modern notion and the controversy surrounding it is not at all settled. Moreover, the lefty, Bush-hating, America-disdain ing ideologues who are the most voiciferous critics of waterboarding have never demonstrated interest in the psychic pain issue anyway-- their only contribution has been to disgorge bile.

Hitchens gets one thing wrong. Early on, he says that waterboarding doesn't _simulate_ the feeling of drowning, it _is_ drowning. Well, he's wrong. His lungs did not fill with water. Therefore he wasn't drowning; QED. But he does testify very convincingly that it's an extremely stressful experience; he withstood it for 17 seconds.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." After I got beyond my gag reflex at hearing this from a lawyer, I saw that the advice holds in unexpected contexts.

I care a lot about my dignity and honor. I try not to soil either, ever. But I can picture myself water boarding KSM in certain circumstances --- the imminent atrocity scenario, for example.

I picture myself administering the water board process. Mr. Wallace asks me to stay my hand because I wouldn't want to endure the water boarding myself. But I would never have planned to burn thousands of children, women and innocents alive in the first place.

Nonetheless, I would pour as much water on KSM's face as permitted by the outer boundaries of my personal code of honor. I would not allow Mr. Mohammed's to die. But I wouldn't tell him I wouldn't either. I would walk out at the end of the whole thing feeling the same as I do after climbing out of a septic tank I have fixed. Disgusted at the stench, but secure in the knowledge that I had done a dirty job for my family's well being and that the smell would wash off.

It's possible that Mr. Wallace's arguments are legalistically valid, but it is certain that they are unfair and dishonest. Everything hinges on the specific circumstances of the situation --- one sure way of knowing you are wrong is when find yourself making sweeping generalizations .

Do not imagine that singing a lullaby cannot be torture. By all means, condemn torture in its obvious forms. But bear in mind that torture is not determined by the implements at hand --- it is defined by how they are used.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
ƒ?? any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.[1]

Raising the "chicken little" scenario that several cities will be smoked in a WMD release unless we torture "this guy" who "theoretically" knows enough about everything to stop is just as bogus as the spectre of mushroom clouds over our cities if we don't invade Iraq. What we are discussing is a moral and legal issue transcending either the right or left wing nuts. A better issue is "Does torture really work?"

We don't know what KSM revealed. We don't know if information obtained from him prevented any future attacks on our soil. We only have the word of those who raised the mushroom cloud spectre and I am frankly skeptical.

On torture, Michael Yon says "We can beat the terrorists without it".

Sorry to proffer a LOL on this subject Poor choice of words.

I think that politicians and others on their moral high-horse need to butt out. Solders in active combat need, and should, be able to do whatever is necessary to achieve the mission. Handcuffing them with rules of engagement that diametrically oppose the objectives of the mission sets them up for failure or worse, death. But I digress. Torture is one tool in the toolbox. Do I feel bad that a group of terrorists were "abused" and humiliated an Abu Girhab? ABSOLUTELY NOT! These prisoners would just as soon saw your head off with a dull knife!

War is war. It's not pretty, neat or clean. I just read a GREAT book called "Lone Survivor - The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10" by Marcus Lattrell & Patrick Robinson. One scene Marcus describes in Afghanistan is where his SEAL team came across a group of "Goat Herders". Training dictates that they had to kill these "farmers" since they could not ascertain what side they were on. The team discussed the situation and voted to let them go. An hour later they were attacked by at least 150 Taliban warriors. The reason I mention this is that the team discussed the consequences of killing these farmers. Being sent to prison for "murder" after being crucified by the liberal media wasn't too attractive to these SEALS, however, if that was the case, then they would have dealt with it. Incidentally, how can there be a "murder" charge when you are at war in an active combat area? That just doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, as I said they let them go. A decision that cost the lives of 3 of the countries bravest warriors.

My point is that the enemy doesn't play by the rules. They never have, and they never will. If water boarding, or playing loud rap music or any other method is used to get information from these human pieces of garbage, then I say do it. In war, I think the ends do justify the means. Do whatever is necessary. The public doesn't need to know. In fact, most of the public probably couldn't stomach 5 minutes in an active combat zone.

Not touching of what is torture or was our conduct in compliance with the Geneva convention, it all strikes me as a debate on the meaning of "is" and that is misdirect. A waste of time. Everything has to have an objective, a benefit.

The benefit of war is a better peace. As noted above war is an atrocity and immoral, but we wage it to achieve the better peace. So when it comes to torture, there are several aspects that can be cost-benefited.

If we do torture, we lose our moral high ground, and frankly at the end of the day that is pretty much all we have. So assuming there is a benefit to torture, losing it all (what makes us unique and special in the history of humanity) is probably not worth it.

Now I would like someone to show me the "benefit" of torture, any torture. Being a student of history and an intel professional, and knowing many intel professionals, I don't know a single one who can cite you a single incident where torture produced any information that would constitute useful intelligence. Just ask SEN McCain, he and many others will tell you, that they will say whatever is necessary to make the pain stop. While there may be nuggets of information in that gut spilling; names, units, etc. It is not useful intelligence, i.e. information that is actionable. And the mental anguish that gut spilling inflicts on the individual is arguable far worse than the physical pain. Again I refer to the words of SEN McCain.

Elucidation, what professionals do to get people to fess up, does produce a wealth of information. Saddam Hussein spilled it, and KSM spilled it...over time. So again, even assuming torture worked, the type of information is only of value at a strategic level and therefore frankly derivable or accruable from other sources. Now the only two so called strategic surprise we have suffered, Pearl harbor and 9/11 were hardly surprise given the abundance of intelligence. If we failed to appreciate or prepare adequately for either event, again, not grounds for torture, but grounds for better intel analysis.

So that leaves tactical intelligence and LTC West's actions. He believed that torturing his captives could prevent tactical surprise. I would posit, that in an active shooting war, tactical surprise is a function of gross incompetence. The commander knows attack is possible if not imminent from any number of directions and prepares accordingly. Attack in war can not be eliminated, simply minimized. That is war. So again, sacrificing it all, what makes us unique and special, to prevent the unpreventable (combat in war) is admirable but faulty because it is unrealistic and the benefit does not exceed the cost.

Frankly debating the the meaning of is, or what constitutes the gray edge of torture, is torture. Unless someone can provide overwhelming evidence of the benefit of torture that exceeds the cost (loss of what makes America not just great but exceptional in human history) this is a waste of time and effort. An act of redirect in what is really a national war crimes self trial. Since we don't want to face up to our (national) misdeeds with the honor and integrity with which we spent our lives serving, we will have to settle for a hung jury of ourselves.

My comment is that I think an excessive amount of attention is being focused on waterboarding. From what we know, three people have been waterboarded since 2001 in US custody. While I personally think waterboarding is torture, I think the debate over waterboarding has been excessively partisan and largely worthless. The CIA waterboarded the three most valuable detainees we had, did it under very controlled conditions, and only did it during a very vulnerable period from 2001-2003 where the US was extremely worried about follow-on attacks from AQ. We were in a race against the clock to see if we could learn about follow-on attacks and disrupt them in time. Once we were able to reassure ourselves that massive follow-on attacks either weren't in the offing, or we disrupted them (probably a combo of both), the CIA and the Bush Admin stopped using waterboarding. The issue has largely been solved for many years already. What Bush SHOULD HAVE DONE, is explicitly pardon those involved in the three interrogations, while condemning waterboarding as torture and explaining the circumstances as to why it was tolerated in three cases.

What is of far more important value is the OTHER tactics that the Red Cross and human rights groups complain about: loud music, cold or hot temperatures, stress positions, barking dogs nearby, and sleep deprivation. In my opinion, none of these are automatically torture. Yet the critics of these methods routinely characterize them as torture and the media dutifully lists them right alongside waterboarding. In fact, waterboarding is in a whole different category. Loud music isn't even close to being the same league as waterboarding. A chilly or stuffy cell is not torture. Obviously, throwing a guy into a meat locker for 3 days and exposing them to frostbite or hypothermia conditions would be torture. Blowing a guy's eardrums out with 180 dB noises would be torture. Keeping a guy awake for so long that he's at risk of cardiac failure is torture. But keeping a suspect off balance, disoriented, and anxious is not torture.

The debate over methods of interrogations has not been objective or honest.

I think we can make a moral case for using waterboarding to protect freedom. To maintain the moral high ground, we must get clear that waterboarding, or any other physical or mental stress, isn't, by itself, torture. According to the UN definition, it depends on context. I think waterboarding isn't torture when we use it only in "a highly controlled environment" - that avoids the "severe" threshold - and we use it only to "obtain information" (the weakest link in the UN's definition of torture). I say the morality of protecting freedom and saving lives trumps the hurt feelings of someone who would target innocents to further a cause.

I, too, was waterboarded at SERE school, Scott, but you appear to have forgotten why we were subjected to SERE school. While command certainly sought to avoid the compromise of the 2 days of tactical information we low ranking warfighters might have in our heads, they were much more concerned that we stay alive and that we learn not to be overwhelmed by the utter immorality of our enemies. The lesson of SERE school was to resist the incomprehensibl e, to Americans, depravity of officials in a society that isn't free. To resist despite being broken, to not let being broken be a source of shame, to force the enemy to start from square one every time.

The NV, in the mold of all dictatorships, sought "confessions" from the champions of freedom they captured; brainwashing, if you will. Besides the barbaric, clearly "severe" techniques they employed, it's the context. It's the very real chance of death in an unmonitored environment and the demand to "confess" to "war crimes" and to denounce liberty that truly made it torture. The NV officals, again, like all officals in oppressed societies, cared not a whit about gaining any information to save lives other than their own, but only to extend their power.

The use of mental and physical pain by any society to further its ends is fraught with the hazards of human frailty, but I believe our institutions are up to the challenge. That's moral high ground, moral strength, that we can openly identify and narrowly apply safe, overseen, but intense stress on clearly identified, stateless enemy agents to protect lives and liberty throughout the world. Our current, stateless enemy is at an extreme logistical disadvantage and their high level commanders must compensate by being in the field by stealth. I think we need to send our stateless enemies the message that, when we capture any one of them, we will impassionately and effectively work our way up to those high level agents. That unambiguous message, alone, will cause major uncertainty and disruption among their cells when one of them is captured, much less what we might find out if we actually put some stress on our captive.

I am very thankful that we had people who got priceless information out of KSM and his two AQ buddies that saved lives ... and I could care less what method they used to get it. These people mutilate captives and cut off heads on video. They must be laughing at our perceived weakness over this issue. I understand KSM spilled the beans after just thirty second or so of water being poured over his face and into his nose. My ONLY regret is that they didn't pour a little water over the face of his nephew Ramzi Yousef who bombed the WTC in 1993 in an attempt to kill 25,000 Americans. Maybe they would have learned something to prevent his uncle KSB from taking down the trade center on 9/11. It was an act of war, not a criminal action as Clinton considered it.

Hmm, so I guess we shouldn't throw murderers and kidnappers in jail, because I'd hate to have that happen to me.

No.

The Geneva Conventions impose restrictions on our troops. Restrictions that make their job harder, adn make them easier to kill. That's the cost.

The Geneva Conventions supposedly give benefits to our troops: the proper treatment of POWs. Countries follow the Conventions because the rewards (decent treatment for their POWs) are worth the costs (lower effectiveness for troops, higher chance they'll get killed in battle).

Our enemies are not paying the costs of the Geneva Conventions. They do not follow the rules (uniforms, not hiding behind civilians, treating POWs properly), it is therefore WRONG to give them the benefits.

When you give unlawful combatants the benefits of the Geneva Conventions, you cheapen the Conventions. When you treat dishonorable scum like honorable soldiers, you spit on the honor of honorable soldiers. It is Gresham's Law made flesh: you are treating a counterfeit soldier as if he were a real one, thus lowering the value of being a real one.

People who do not wear distinctive markings as fighters, who hide behind civilians, who do not have a chain or command, or who have a chain of command that routinely murders innocent civilians and/or legal combatant POWs, those people are scum. What they DESERVE, and what they should get, is a court martial, rigorous interrogation (including drugs, sleep deprivation, and torture), and then, once they've been drained of any useful information, summary execution.

They have no honor. Treating them as if they do cheapens the honor of those who DO have it.

All examples given involved military personnel or the police, which is not the focus of the waterboarding debate in America.

"After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war."
"pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals"
"U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the 'water cure'"
"In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff"

The vast majority of Americans will agree that our military and police should not waterboard, but a large handful would allow intelligence officials to waterboard if there is reason to believe the prisoner has intelligence of a pending attack (as was the case with KSM).

Claiming that there are some cases of "severe psychological trauma" or "panic attacks" does not constitute torture: some rich suburban momma boys will crap their pants and have panic attacks if they're brought in for questioning at a police station...is that torture?

The President should have to sign off on every instance of waterboarding. We had the moral high ground well before the media went nuts over Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and waterboarding.. .and what did the Islamic Jihadists do? Oh yeah, they beheaded prisoners.

Loud music? Lack of sleep? Stress situations? I knew it. My kids have been torturing me for years.

OK, I can see that this discussion is going nowhere. Let's just bring home ALL the troops, make heroin legal, tax the hell out of it and execute anybody who does any illegal dealing in it. No more freelance dope growers, all government controlled and TAXED. After all, money is the object here, because I can tell our government doesn't care a rats ass about the troops. Make every person who has served in combat exempt from paying income tax FOR LIFE. Make it a federal crime to attempt to attain combat status falsely. OK, and while we are at it, bring back the draft. Increase the budget for the CIA and increase the language training budget for people who learn Arabic, both written and spoken. A bonus will be paid to anybody who meets certain proficiency in that language. This should also include Farsi. Chinese would be added to the list, too.

If we can stop our enemies before they attack, we win. If we can out-intelligenc e them, we win. Do not allow the politicians to defeat us on our own home turf. Defend the country from within and make the enemy FEAR us. Right now we are pretty much the laughing stock of the world, except for those Al Queda slime who have been dispatched to the 'Mustang Ranch' in the sky.

Rid the country of illegal aliens, including foreign students who have 'overstayed their visas.' Criminalize hiring illegals, pick your own fruit. Any person producing forged documents shall be deported, if they are American citizens, jailed for a long time. This includes drivers' licenses and SS cards.

We gotta straighten this stuff out, or we are history.

Standing by to dismount soap box.......

No one can doubt the fact that torture can lead to good intelligence information. Also no one can deny the fact that current interrogation methods can lead to good intelligence information as well. Each method has it's on pitfalls. Yet the debate is not really about methodology but ideology.

Our ideology is that we are not like our enemies and fight with honor even when our enemies do not. This allows us to strategically partner with our allies and gives us Information Operation ammunition when we fight to win hearts and minds.

While torturing individuals can lead to strategic successes, i.e. preventing a terrorist attack. i wonder if it will set us back strategically i.e. the affected target audience assumes that we are no better than the terrorist themselves.

While the need to prevent terrorist events is high on the priority list... dealing with the fundamental issues that allow terrorists to thrive should be even higher. In the case of torture we will not gain any strategic advantage if we are seen as using methods unbecoming of a benevolent state.

There seems to me to be a fundamental difference between interrogation of criminal suspects in order to get them to confess crimes, (which needs to respect inherent dignity--must avoid all torture) and interrogation of enemy combatants to thwart attacks in progress during a war. If it is ok (acc to the laws of war) to nuke a city of civilians in order to persuade (coerce) surrender, or shoot down an airliner full of innocents to stop it from crashing into the capitol, how can it be worse to waterboard a principal "illegal combatant" who is in the act of destroying innocent life? KSM was a master planner of ongoing attacks. His silence --his refusal to disclose information concerning such was not a right to avoid self incrimination; it was part and parcel of the attack. And as such can (legally, I feel) be countered by another act of war. Of course there are and must be rules, and no one down the chain of command has (or should have) the power to nuke a city, shoot down an airliner or waterboard, but the commander in chief must have this power to protect the innocents that he is sworn to protect. As I understand it, the three instances of waterboarding were done by executive order of the president. (And I'm ok with that) Abusing every detainee to see what he knows is wrong and counterproducti ve; and violations of the field manual should be transparently prosecuted. But let us not be worshipers of "moral high ground" when it threatens our citizens. Boot Hill is high ground, but it is not moral for a leader to commit his people there rather than their enemies.

your writing is great

I wonder why no one has referred to Michael's point that the 72nd MPs refused to participate in AbuGhraib?

I just want to reinforce what Michael Stafford-Hill wrote today at 18:26. After reading his comments, I thought "that's precisely what I would like to say" and I would just be reiterating what he wrote in perhaps different words! So please go back and thoughtfully read his entry.

I stopped reading Michael Yon's email when I got to the word "normal" in this sentence: "We get huge amounts of information from normal people when they realize we are morally superior to the terrorists." I can't imagine a scenario where we would be interrogating "normal" people to get information about terror threats or war movements and plans!! And like I said before, Michael, (and I'm a kind and gentle woman) I would want a "Jack Bauer" to do whatever is necessary if the lives of our people are in jeopardy.

I should have said when I read the word "normal" I momentarily stopped reading, to think about and wonder why he would use the word "normal" to refer to an enemy who is likely a terrorist. And I also want to say, with others, thanks Michael for reporting to us from the front and also for having an open forum. May God bless you and keep you safe.

Waterboarding is, by definition, torture. Some would say "mild" torture, but torture nonetheless. Torture is a war crime. The United States has sanctioned waterboarding, ergo the United States has committed War Crimes. The Geneva Convention emerged from WWII in reaction to Nazi actions. Arguably, Abu Ghraib cost us more in loss of American lives and reputation than was gained by any "intel" we could ever have obtained. Equating torture to screaming kids or nagging wives is not the thoughtful commentary requested by Michael.

Interestingly, former Pres. Bush is about to visit Canada. Canada has very strict laws against War Crimes. According to their laws, anyone SUSPECTED of committing War Crimes is to be arrested and tried or extradited to a country that will try the individual. There is a strong and loud faction that wants him arrested. Stay tuned.

Any comment on this subject is dangerous. Our climate at home is so dangerous that anyone daring to disagree - even in details - with this general position will be subject to extreme measures, including potential loss of job and other things. No free discussion of this issue is possible and the current administration makes it worse.

In my home country, one of the old 18th century rulers, Empress Marie Therese, actually issued a huge codex regarding torture.

In those days, torture was a legal way of interrogation, but, not being defined precisely enough (=the same problem which the current world seems to be suffering from), a lot of problems arised during questioning. That is why Marie Therese employed several lawyers to compile and issue binding instructions on how to torture suspects. The torture methods were divided into three levels of severity, and there was a punctual description of how to execute them, together with time limits. Any physical interrogation methods not described in the codex were forbidden.

Guess what? Waterboarding made the list as a level 2 method. Level 3 included torture with fire.

The codex was repealed in 1791, and all the methods within it have been forbidden since then. The only exception was the years of Nazi occupation (1939-45) and the Stalinist years (1948-53), when the interrogators employed methods at their will. Anti-communist politicians or activists were waterboarded routinely, in order to sign false confessions for the show-trials.

After death of Stalin, the commies finally abolished all physical methods of interrogation. Not because they were humane; but because most of them were actually afraid that they would end up on the receiving end during some intra-party purge.

The public opinion here is very much aware of the fact that waterboarding was a favorite Stalinist method of interrogation, so I would say 90% is against: it is tainted for next 100 years here, regardless of the fact that it does not leave permanent physical disabilities. You may find similar attitudes in the whole Central and Eastern Europe, and this is region that has produced one of the most faithful US allies recently: waterboarding may extract information from KSM, but at the same time damages other US interests. There is enough haters of America in the world already; but thing like this may push some other fence-sitters over the edge.

USA does not suffer from a collective memory of totalitarian regime on its own soil, and so the subject of waterboarding is much more divisive in American public. After all, Americans mostly trust their own executive branches, which is rather an exception in the world. But, given the divisive nature of the theme, what about letting the Congress explicitely decide whether waterboarding is legal or not? After all, that is what the legislative is for. If you wish to waterboard, why not define it by law?

I too think the standard should be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is no other acceptable standard.

Oxford: To inflict severe pain or suffering upon; to torment; to distress or afflict grievously; also, to exercise the mind
severely, to puzzle or perplex greatly. Also absol. to cause extreme pain.

American Heritage: Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

UN Jackassery: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

So, I guess if you get down to it, the UN wants mental torture included, which, well, could really be anything that makes you feel bad.

I reject the UN definition, and would apply the definition as it has been consistently understood. Reminder: this is not law enforcement. This is war.

Apparently some will be disappointed to learn that Bush made his speech in Canada and was not arrested for war crimes... I'll leave the ad homen responses to the intellectuals.

Sir, I respectfully disagree with your standard for behavior in war.

First, it is a Biblical standard. The US Military does not operate to those standards, nor is it allowed to do so under the Constitution which we swore to defend. q.v. the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Second, it is an impractical standard. I would not choose to have the enemy kill me in combat, so under your standard I can't kill them. This isn't a cavil. If your standard is to be used, it has to work all the time, not just in the case where you wish to apply it. The Golden Rule is obviously not applicable to combat - at all.

Third, this is a new kind of war. Guerrilla war is not new, but is not adequately covered by current combat rules. The
current rules of war address only a European versus European conventional war. Everything in the rules rests on that foundation.

This is a religious war as well as a guerilla war; and it is a war against an entire culture whose civil, political and religious life are one. In other words, we are fighting a holy war against a totalitarian religious tyranny. I am not speaking uninformed; I received training in orthodox Sunni theology from an al-Azhar theology graduate, I've read the Qur'an twice, and studied Islaam for two decades. The very core of daily life in the dar es salaam - the Muslim world - rests on assumptions and training directly contradictory to everything our Constitution stands for. If you're interested, I'll send you a copy of my paper "Can Islaam Co-Exist With the US Constitution?". It's a law school paper approaching the topic from a legal and historical perspective.

If we adopt your standard in a total war agaisnt a culture which absolutely rejects not only the Golden Rule, but the very foundational assumptions of our society, we will lose.

Respectfully,

Larry A. Frost
LTC, Intelligence Corps
US Army (Ret)

LTC Larry Frost
If per chance in the future should you receive a complimentary drink from an unknown source with the words "A salute to your civility in the pursuit of intellectual discussion" it will be from me..

The jackass term came from Mr. Dobbs who attempts to confuse the definition of torture.

Yoo may well end up in prison. Things done by him and others are just coming out. For example, seems more than 3 were waterboarded/to rtured. Take a look at...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530

There are so many shoes dropping that it will be hard to keep up with them.

Having served on several flag staffs, the best leaders were the ones who kept on topic, not smoking the issues. And they called them as they saw them.

Yes, this discussion is about what is right. That includes what is legal and what the ubiquitous "we" agreed to as boundaries. I have friends in the intel community and we have discussed the value of torture and the credibility of information derived therefrom. I expect you have had similar discussions.

Unless I missed it...

Is waterboarding torture when our USAF uses WB on it's flight crews training in case shot down over water??

We already know that certain "enhanced methods" (including waterboardering ) are torture. The real question is "Is torture ever necessary". A flow chart could be developed. Is its use (torture) the only way to obtain timelu actionable (tactical) intelligence? If the answer is no, then never torture. If yes, then a cost-benefit analysis should be done (see Joe Price comment below). Remember, if an agent is rolled up/captured, agencies examine that agent's contacts and all he knew to achieve damage control. It would seem to me that the most important intel we could have obtained from KSM was how to get to OBL. Seems clear that didn't happen.

Ronnie, after communism fell in 1989, a special institution was set up, "The institute for study of crimes of communism". It is a respectable institution with some 20 full-time researches, mostly historians and lawyers They are in action since July 1990, and they concentrated on collecting legal materials from the Communist era, plus personal accounts of survivors or the families or victims. They helped to rectify more than a few personal injustices (e.g., confiscation of property) by documenting them thoroughly.

They publish a newsletter 4 times a year, starting in 1990, plus many books. Plus, survivor accounts are often published separately. All together, there is a huge amount of literature on this theme, unfortunately, mostly in Czech or Slovak language, so, not directly available to you. For most of the part, it is painful just to read and imagine.

And the waterboarding theme was one of the first to be studied there, about 10 years before KSM was waterboarded and thus introduced this controversy on the world stage.

....Then one has to take those circumstances - and only those circumstances - and ask whether torture is legal, and then moral. Both of those involve defining what torture is.
When I was a 1LT, I took the company on a POW training exercise in which I had prisoners led out of a clearing, smeared with catchup, pillows whacked and guys on "my" side scream and holler, then get led back in front of my 'prisoners'. They thought the XO had gone nuts - and they all spilled what they were supposed to keep quiet about. Point of the exercise? Don't suppose that doing what you are supposed to do is as easy as you think, sitting at the joint tossing a few brews back and explaining how brave you will be. We all had a long talk about the realities of our enemies and what we might really face, and I think the company gained a more realistic idea of what combat can be like.
According to the UN definition, that was probably torture. Do you think so? If so, was it appropriate and 'worth it' under the circumstances?
This is not a simple, or simplistic, question with ready-made answers. Especially when the survival of our civilization is at stake.
Would any of you torture a captured criminal if you knew, for a fact, that they knew where the rest of their gang had taken your kidnapped child - who they intended to rape and murder? Think about that one. I know - what one might actually do in those circumstances may not fairly reflect what is right. But I also think the kidnapped child has rights, and that those rights trump the rights of the actual kidnappers.
Uncertainty is hard for academic moral calculations to deal with. But academicians have neither time limits on their ponderous arguments, nor real stakes on the outcome. They are a bit like my soldiers bragging in the bar; they don't have to deal with reality.
We, as soldiers of the republic, do have to deal with reality.

...continued

Of course guerrilla warfare is addressed in current doctrine. It is a tactic, traditionally categorized in low instantiate or unconventional warfare. It is an effector like any other under the current rubric of "effects based operations" because it achieves a psychological effect on the enemy. Why else would we have spent billions of dollars on the patriot missile system when the only thing it has effected is a Navy F-18 and a British Tornado. It provides a psychological effect to counter the equally ineffective but highly terrorizing effect produced by the Scud.

So first we have reaffirmed that what goes on it the head of decision makers and stakeholders (general population ala clausewitzian trinity or why we won Vietnam tactically but lost it strategically) while not kinetic is far more significant to the outcome of war than all that messy kinetic stuff on the battlefield.

Second, your comment on total war, and I have to ask with whom? Total war is two state actors employing their all because they are willing to bet it all on the outcome. AQ is not a state actor, in fact when taken out of histrionics and put back into their proper bucket (guerrilla warfare) are a hum drum insurgent group. And insurgent groups are groups of people who take up arms against a state because they are deprived of their political voice. (PhDs in Poly Sci are very handy for learning how to organize this concepts)

(Unlike post Saddam Iraq where the Sadr-ites, various Sunni groups, and the Kurds played political hokey pokey periodically stepping in and out of the political arena when they didn't get their way...never deprived of their rights. Thus there was never an actual insurgency in Iraq besides AQI.)

So back to AQ. Who are they insurgents of? The government of Saudi Arabia. The fact that they have the financial where with all to jet set to scenic destinations like Ass-crack-istan , doesn't change that fundamental fact. And since folks like to throw Sun Tzu around, he would tell you it makes perfect sense for them to attack us. Who is the biggest stalwart of the
Govt of the Saud family? Us. So, if you kick out the bulwark, the wall falls. Apparently AQ gets basic tactics better than you. (Alas Messr Bin Laden like myself started out as a humble foot soldier.)

Now, as noted above in total war the state is willing to bet it all because it is at risk of losing it all. We are not at total war, because #1 we have never bet it all, and #2 we have never been at risk of losing it all.

So back to my original premise, are we willing to sacrifice the sole thing that makes us unique and special in the history of humanity, our moral high ground, to a bunch of thugs who only have the ability to at worst blacken our eye or bloody our nose? And frankly aren't even interested in us.

Furthermore, I have to agree with them that it is long past due for the Saud family to be relegated to the wasteheap of history. Not that AQ has a snowballs chance of coming out on top of that dust up, at least the next Arabian government might do something about their wayward youth.

LTC Frost said: "The bottom line for me -as a strictly practical matter, before any consideration of moral issues - is does torture offer practical advantages? And the answer, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that under some circumstances it clearly does."

Do you have any empirical research to back up this claim? Most of what I have read indicates that torture provides no true advantages over traditional methods of interrogation, unless one is looking to get ANY statement, true or false, from a suspect. I'm willing to read counter-argumen ts, but so far I haven't seen any based on scholarship.

Not every discussion on morality needs to be informed by empirical data. But considering the alleged reasons that we are torturing, it seems pretty pertinent here.

LCOL Frost,

Hate to stick you with links as your time constraints are noted. With regard to your doubt about the possibility of Yoo being prosecuted for a "legal opinion", something for you to read at your convenience.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/30/red_cross_finds_detainees_intentionally_tortured

It seems to me, and no I did not stay at the Holiday Inn last night, that several of Yoo's opinions were designed to facilitate torture and protect those who tortured. Odd how years after these opinions were rendered and just before the new administration was sworn in, the Justice Department suddenly found it necessary to repudiate them.

"WB isn't severe mental stress when applied in highly controlled environments to seek information, while CDR Dudley feels otherwise."

Bill w...What I actually said was that during SERE, we knew we would not be seriously harmed, ergo, there was no mental aspect to waterboarding. Prisoners under CIA control do not have that knowledge and may well think they are going to be killed. Magnitude of difference.

Not sure who said it but it was stated that waterboarding was halted BEFORE water was ingested into the lungs. The inevitable first breath drew water into the lungs albiet a small amount. That was the point when the "treatment" ceased. I did have a rather lengthly coughing spasm after that.

OK, torture is wrong. But none ever said it wasn't wrong and this wasn't a choice between right and wrong. It's always been a choice between what's wrong, and what's worse. It's wrong to torture and lose the moral high terrain, but it's worse to sit on your high moral horse and fail to prevent the destruction of innocents - non-combatants back at home. Granted it's tough to get your nose out of joint by being immoral to an extent, but it's much tougher to have your childrens' noses get completely blown-off. There were children killed on 9-11 in the World Trade Center, and in aircraft that plowed into either buildings or earth! So your JAG guy with the scars of combat can feel moralistic and good, but there are/repeat are/ proverbial "ticking time bombs" that need to be defused or children, and wives, and parents, and shipmates will die. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the perfect soul for water-boarding after 9-11. He had murdered THOUSANDS, intended to murder more, had plans afoot, and wasn't gonna talk. Well he talked. George Tenant, Director of the CIA says lives were saved as a result. I can live with that, and had I performed the deed myself, I'd sleep soundly at night for doing so. I am grateful every day that the agency did what needed to be done in the days following 9-11. I am similarly grateful that President Thruman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and saved up to 1 million US lives by concluding the war with Japan. And I'm grateful that Jimmy Doolittle dropped bombs on Tokyo on targets of little military utility, and put the fear of retaliation into the brainstem of Tojo. And I'm grateful that veterans live with terrible dreams so that I don't have to, and I pray for the peace of God for their hearts and souls. So to conclude, yes I'd like to be nice to killers too, and if we have the time to spare, I'm willing to give them cigarettes and coffee and take the high moral ground. Like the man said; "Good is better than Evil because it's nicer!" But if we don't have the time to spare, the killers should pay the piper - not our loved ones.

We have another difference of opinion. I think no human has the capacity for reflecting on how far the operator will go in the moment one is actually undergoing waterboarding. I reject the notion that a captive's ignorance of our institutions and moral character makes for any additional stress in that moment. The mental aspects of waterboarding are very primal. Your lower brain is screaming "there's a problem", what little higher brain activity that remains, wondering about the outcome, is inconsequential .

Just for clarity's sake, Scott, are you saying that when you were waterboarded, you got some water in your lungs at the onset, the operator noticed right away and ended the session?

"So back to AQ. Who are they insurgents of? The government of Saudi Arabia. The fact that they have the financial where with all to jet set to scenic destinations like Ass-crack-istan , doesn't change that fundamental fact. And since folks like to throw Sun Tzu around, he would tell you it makes perfect sense for them to attack us. Who is the biggest stalwart of the
Govt of the Saud family? Us. So, if you kick out the bulwark, the wall falls. Apparently AQ gets basic tactics better than you. (Alas Messr Bin Laden like myself started out as a humble foot soldier.) "
-----Disagree. AQ - intheir own estimation and stdatement - are insurgents against non-islaamics. They would prefer to attack Saudia because a heretic or apostate is WORSE, in orthodox islaamic theology, than any of the people of the book. They attack us instead because they can, and because they think it will bring more resources, faster, than attacking Saudia.
For the record, I started out as a private E0 in the US Marines, and got sent to OCS by 2nd Bn, Ranger (Airborne). I started out as a 'humble foot soldier'. And I made NCO in both the Marines and the Army before earning my butterbar.
I agree attacking Saudia would be worse tactics - but my analysis of AQ's reasons reflects study of what they say, and their motivations, as well as simple battlefield geopolitics.

"Now, as noted above in total war the state is willing to bet it all because it is at risk of losing it all. We are not at total war, because #1 we have never bet it all, and #2 we have never been at risk of losing it all. "
------I believe we are at hazard of losing it all, largely because we don't accept that fact. We are IN a total war - but we are not fighting our side of it, the worst possible situation.

"So back to my original premise, are we willing to sacrifice the sole thing that makes us unique and special in the history of humanity, our moral high ground, to a bunch of thugs who only have the ability to at worst blacken our eye or bloody our nose? And frankly aren't even interested in us."
--------------I'm sorry, but there isn't time or space to correct what's wrong with this statement. BLUF: Not torturing people is NOT primary to what makes us superior. No society can be based on a negative. We are not defined by what we are against, but what we are for, and ideas of individual liberty, individual responsibility and freedom from control cover so much MORE than just the moral issues around torture I don't know where to start.


"Furthermore, I have to agree with them that it is long past due for the Saud family to be relegated to the wasteheap of history. Not that AQ has a snowballs chance of coming out on top of that dust up, at least the next Arabian government might do something about their wayward youth."
--------Concur, but in the short term, that is probably not in our national self interest - and seeing AQ control mideast oil absolutely is not. How, when, and under what terms the Saudis get fixed matters.

bluejammy:

Your military status is irrelevant, except as it might provide a reasonable source you can use to back up facts you assert. Nobody says you have to be military to speak here, or if they do, they are incorrect.

Namecalling: One of the faults of modern education is that it does not teach people how to think. Name calling is unacceptable for three big reasons. In order of importance:
----Namecalling is not rhetoric. It provides neither facts nor logic in order to argue your point.

----Namecalling (also called argumentum ad hominem in logic) mostly demonstrates that you have neither facts nor logic to present; it reduces you to a kind of intellectual "Nyaa, Nyaa na na nah".

--Namecalling makes people angry. The point of discussion is to try to use reason to learn new things or to reach a concensus. Name calling teaches nothing and by making people angry, gets in the way or reasonable discussion.

THAT'S why name-calling is out of bounds in every civilized discussion forum in human history. reasons, and good ones.

Substantive issue: We can't use politicians because that's argument from authority (and bad authority at that). We can't use the Bible in the exact context it was quoted before (although the Golden Rule is not really biblical) because the military doesn't run on the Bible. But we can use our own ethics, argued here, to reach a concencus, whether that ethic is religiously based or based on other things.

You're free to argue based on the Bible, we just can't impose Biblical rules on the military per se because our Constitution doesn't allow it.

LF

We were in ranks and the first of our group was waterboarded in front of us. He came out O.K. When I was strapped down and the cloth was placed over my head, I held my breath. I did so for a couple of minutes. I then tried to breathe thru pursed lips and hoping teeth would stop the water and I could get air. No joy. My nostrils were filled with water and not an option. I breathed in the water, struggling against the restraints and they stopped. That was over 35 years ago but the memory is still there.

There have been some 20 deaths resulting from US interrogations. The Army doctors signing the death certificates identified the cause as murder. I don't want to parse the severity of various forms of enhanced interrogation. I want to know if they are NECESSARY. That, I believe, is the standard. Not just a feeling of necessity, or a torture fishing expedition, but rock solid, no other recourse, eminent danger kind of necessity.

Dave said: "there are/repeat are/ proverbial "ticking time bombs" that need to be defused or children, and wives, and parents, and shipmates will die."

Aside from the fact that this was not the daily circumstance at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, this still doesn't address the issue of effectiveness.

You say the following: "Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the perfect soul for water-boarding after 9-11. He had murdered THOUSANDS, intended to murder more, had plans afoot, and wasn't gonna talk. Well he talked."

Well, yes. He talked. But did you see what he said? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#List_of_Confessions. No one inside or outside of government thinks that KSM had a hand in many or even most of these incidents. Most of what he said was simply untrue. If we're torturing to get information, what good does this misinformation do?

According to the sources available, torture is good for getting people to say things. However, it is no better than traditional interrogation at getting them to say TRUE things.

If you think that KSM was the "perfect soul for water-boarding after 9-11" simply BECAUSE "he had murdered THOUSANDS," then we're not talking about interrogation. We're talking about torture for punishment. And that's waaaay outside of where most advocates of what is winkingly called "harsh interrogation" are comfortable going.

Bill Brent said: "The fact is, there are no "laws of war." There is only the imperative to destroy the enemy's will to fight. To do this you must both destroy his capacity to fight and humiliate his cause. And to do that, you must do whatever it takes."

You know, all this "we must do whatever it takes," nobly-staring-i nto-the-sunset bravado is STILL contingent on the assumption that torture is a more reliable method to get truthful information than standard interrogation techniques. The overwhelming bulk of the record does not support this assumption. Indeed, knowledge that one's enemy engages in torture simply encourages opposition to this enemy, as he is known to be unjustly cruel.

If there was some sort of reliable record to indicate that torture produced reliable intelligence, the direction this debate has taken might seem valid. As it stands, the record indicates the exact opposite. So why we're discussing this as a question of morality, rather than a question of morality AND effectiveness, is beyond me.

Here's one musing on torture from 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Money quote comes at the end:
**********
Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructiv e. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.
*********

Perhaps it is the presentation I heard last week from a deck officer that was on the USS Cole when it was attacked that incites my angst most. That that ship sailed into the Yemen Harbor unaware and uninformed of a terror threat and that Shipƒ??s Captains career ends not because of his malfeasance but because of the malfeasance of an Intel community that was legislatively prohibited from effective Intelligence gathering and/or could not conceive of such an event nor could its cohorts conceive of a more horrendous event, 9/11. That USS Cole attack facilitated by a sophisticated shaped charge +30 foot boat that literally lifted the Cole up from the water blowing a 40 ft hole in its side, killing 17 sailors and injuring many more, but for its effectively engaged crew they saved that ship from sinking.
Perhaps my angst is even more outraged that the Al Qaeda actors that committed an act of war are now due a US trial because of the egregious reemerging mirandizing mentality, that lawyerly pin strip suit, black leather brief case wearing wing tips shoes approach that worked so effectively during the Clinton term especially on aspirin factories. Al Qaeda must be shaking in their Nikes. This was an attack on US sovereign soil was it not? That makes it an act of war, does it not? Or should we refer to some touchy feely UN or Geneva conventions that will conclude otherwise, because, after all this is the US and we are the worldƒ??s fair game are we not?
Perhaps I am most agitated by the fact that an administration did not permit the one person, in the US that recognized the world terror threat, had the only active team to investigate such activity, and thus could effectively investigate the Cole bombing, FBI Agent John Oƒ??Neill back into country. But why was the FBI and not the military the agency to pursue such an act of war investigation? Is this the norm? The Clinton appointee Ambassador Barbara Bodine would not permit Oƒ??Neillƒ??s reentry to Yemen, an action that delayed and severely hampered an investigation making great progress which subsequently languished and lost momentum.
CMDR Dudley that you have your sharp knives out only for the Bush Administration over warterboarding and supported with information links revealing a group of individuals grappling perhaps ineffectively but nevertheless engaging in a process initiated by an enormous event beyond anyoneƒ??s comprehension. That Star Trek quote ƒ??boldly goes where no man has gone beforeƒ? comes to mind. That there is another opinion about the process is not a supportive argument, that should be the norm and if no such participation is encouraged then the process is really broken.
One of your links references Senator Patrick Leahy. If this is not the personification of the quintessential oxymoron there ainƒ??t no such animal. The atypical man of the Dem party, removed from his House Intelligence Sub Chair for sharing secret information with a reporter as his non criminal sentence. Not just once and he and another member threatened the Intel community with public exposure if they did not approve of their missionƒ??s intent. This occurred during the Iran Contra affair and Leahy divulged secret information I believe when Libya was attacked. Leahyƒ??s sentence - Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thatƒ??s Justice?
The Dem party proclivity is further defined by the Church Committeeƒ??s legislative actions in the 70s to early 80s and again regained momentum and continued throughout the Clinton years. As I recall Church restricted agents subject to criminal prosecution for working with criminals as snitches as the police and FBI can. And then there is the firewall Jamie Gorelick legal language creation that prevented FBI and CIA from sharing information.
LTC covered the Warterboarding. It changed and angered me too. But then there was the Cole, Nicholas Berg, Daniel Pearl and 9/11. Intel was broke.

The debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed, seeming to be dragged rather than to march to the intended goal. Something of this sort must I think, always happen in public democratic assemblies? Alexis De Tocqueville

Bill,
"For the very narrow and specific task of obtaining verifiable, exploitable, tacitcal information, high stress interrogation seems to quite effective."

We both linit the possibility of use of torture (mild or not) to obtaining urgent tactical information. Likely, in almost every situation it could be utilized in a tactical sense, it would have to occur in the field with untrained interrogators. The half-life of tactical information in this case is measured in hours. Also likely is that the majority of those soldiers would not have enough tactical information and an enemy field commander might be better able to resist or provide false info. It is a conundrum.

At the risk of sounding snarky, I think we need more to attest to the effectiveness of torture than a few "I thinks" or "seems" and an anecdotal experience from a couple of training exercises.

I don't mean to keep referring to the same single source, but Darius Rejali's book on clean tortures has the most thorough collection of information and studies on the effectiveness of tortures, and it simply doesn't add up to being any more effective than other methods. (That is, it CAN be effective, but probably less than other techniques.) As for those who say otherwise: the burden's on you to make your case. Especially considering the nature of what we're talking about.

As for "training" to resist torture, see the following thoughts from Rejali (#5): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_2.html

Clinger, the Bernard Lewis book I referred to is "The Crisis of Islam". 160 pages, excellent book.

Another reference I have not read yet: MAJ Stephen Coughlin's 333 page War College thesis, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad", at
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:l9g3HuMcjYQJ:www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/saving_major_coughlin.html+maj+coughlin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It has been recommended to me by a colleague still on active duty whom I respect, and so I pass it on. It got MAJ Coughlin removed from the service as a result of activity by a DoD civilian who charged him with being a 'bigot with a pen' for writing the truth. Google MAJ Stephen Coughlin and you'll find a lot. Follow the link above to an article in American Thinker about it, which includes links to the essay itself.

It has frequently been asserted that our enemies (the muslims, that is, the bulk of orthodox Sunni and their tyrannical governments) will lose respect for us if we use torture.

I"m not sure that is true. Again, without respect to whether we choose to define torture as immoral and ban it, I think it is arguable that at least Arab Muslim states may respect us MORE if we use torture. They often use the rhetoric of respect for human rights, but here I assert as fact that islaam has respect only for strength and nothing else; and utter contempt for weakness.

May they resent strength? Yes, especially if we stay in the dar and lord it over them. But if we do our business and get out, I think they will respect us more. THEIR VALUES ARE NOT OUR VALUES. It is a terrible mistake to think otherwise. A Vietnam Marine NCO I knew has some laws of behavior; we are violating Owing's Third Law when we think the Arabs react as we do: "The other guy is not me."

I respect LTC Ralph Peters (USA-Ret) immensely. His strategic thinking is clear and easy to follow. I recommend his comments in this regard RE Afghanistan at this link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/02/the-mendacity-o.html

LTC F

I've no idea why we should seek approval from Arab states at the expense of condemnation from the rest of the civilized world. That makes no sense to me. They will respect us more if we torture?

While off topic, the Peters blog is pretty close to my thinking except for his "best" scenario. The parallels to Vietnam are uncanny. we propped up a government that was weak and corrupt and whose influence does/did not extend beyond Kabul/Saigon. And in Vietnam, we left behind a small cadre in '73 that fled from the rooftops in '75. Abandon Afghanistan now. We went there to kill OBL and destroy AQ. We failed. To a great extent because we emasculated the forces there to fight in Iraq. Departure will leave the various tribes to fight amongst themselves for local power. We have expended too much blood and treasure already and our supply of both is waning.

LTC Frost,

I must say I was surprised at your proposed torture rules. It seems clear that you are absolutely comfortable with what happened at Abu Ghraib as the actions there fall within your proposal. Can this be so?

Had your "rules" been pasted on every square inch of every wall in Abu Ghraib prison, the military guards would have been in full compliance based on the photos I have seen and what I know.

Whatever

It seems that, given the evidence presented thus far, both contemporary and historical, interrogation by torture is less effective than without. Any General Officer when asked what the worst thing was to happen to our war effort will likely say Abu Ghraib. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it seems we should eschew torture in any form.

The principal motivation of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib came at the behest of the professional civilian interrogators. The guards were pushed to "soften up" the prisoners. This was the testimony at the trials, this was revealed also in interviews of the participants broadcast on national TV. I hope torture is not a partisan issue but it seems so for some.

BTW, I think CDR Dudley and Freedom now are both right; the pressure for Abu came from above, but the actual incidents were juvenile pranks magnified out of recognition by the fact the guards has power and little enough supervision they could misuse it - and they did. This was not humilation desinged to 'soften up' prisoners for interrogation, it was power without responsibility.

A specific point: My source tells me the two senior officers involved in Abu almost never set foot inside the compound. Had I been in their place, every guard working for me would have known not only that I could and very frequently did pop up without notice at all hours, but that I took steps to be sure no one could 'pass the word' before I got on the prison cell blocks. Simple precaution, and one I've used a number of times specifically because of the temptation to abuse power.

Something tells me Evan Wallach is a liberal:

1) His argument is illogical on its face -- if I wanted to "do unto others as I'd have them do unto me" in war, I guess I'd lie down and passively present my throat for slicing.

2a) His approach is to try to overcome cause and effect, or to eliminate consequences for bad choices. Sure, a murderer decided to carry out his plan by avoiding a uniform that would have made him AND the came he rode in on fodder for a Hellfire, but, "aren't we better than that?"

2b) In trying to eliminate the consequences for evil choices, it is incumbent on the REST OF US pay the price. (I think it feeds the liberal ego to imagine that they bear the sins of the world, being that many deny Him who does.) When -I- go to another country in civilian clothes and attack THEIR civilians, I don't expect any civility or exemption from torture. This probably keeps me from doing so on a lark -- but yet I have to extend the welcome mat of "civility" to the jihadist. How magnanimous of me (and all of us!).

To me it comes down to this: Equivocation is not substitute for justice.

Wear a uniform and fight like a man, not hiding behind women and children. If you can't do that, you deserve NO protection due a soldier of an sovereign country. Only this Christian wish from one individual to another: May God have mercy on your soul.

Maybe the key issue regarding torture. If an enemy is captured during a firefight, does he have to have a government issued uniform with patches and badges and stuff to be a POW and thus afforded rights under Geneva?

Take for example a scenario where our country was invaded. Since many of us have guns in our homes, we would likely take to the streets wiithout uniforms. We would seek leadership and organization to fight those who are kicking down our doors, putting our teenage kids in prison, blowing up our homes and cars, and so forth. All the while, our invaders claim they are bringing freedom and democracy. Would we then be terrorists? At what point do we decide who is a recognized combatant and who can be tortured?

I do not consider waterboarding as torture. It is so brief, and has no long-lasting effects, either physical or mental.

At any rate, it shouldn't really even be an issue, as its use is so rare.

BTW, I was re-reading posts and saw that Bat Ye'or was referred to as 'him'. He is a she (as in bar mitzvah versus bat mitzvah).

If asked "do you believe torture is right?" I would rapidly answer NO. However, the issue goes way deeper than that; I don't believe it is that simple.

What defines torture?

The article you posted by Evan Wallach was refreshing. He said he told his unit to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It is quite a testimony to hear that those that heard this message refused to take part in the "misconduct" at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. However, I have to question how realistic this scene is to the very often moral dilemmas those in authority, those that are there to protect our national security, are confronted with in the battlefield.

Treating humans as less than "humans" is not acceptable, but at the same time those that have no concern for the rights of the innocent and for those they victimize without remose must be dealt with beyond prison, especially when information is needed to save the life of many.

You said, "we can beat terrorists without it, and in fact can do far better without using barbaric methods." Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? How can we do far better?

Although I have to say that with this I am not saying I agree with "torture" as a form of treatment, I am simply trying to come to a better understanding.