We also lose the moral “high ground” here by becoming just as evil as those we oppose.

Please. We hold kidnappers in cells against their will. That aside, thanks for saying that we’re just as evil as Al Qaeda. Your slip is showing….

(2) There is no evidence that torture “works”

You should’ve said that “there is evidence that torture doesn’t give accurate information on a regular basis”. The soldiers whose lives were saved thanks to waterboarding would disagree that there is an absence of evidence that it “works”.

Please don’t lecture me

No one lectured anyone. I went out of my way to make sure that you didn’t get the wrong impression by starting a new comment - just for you - specifically for that reason. Thanks for serving, but you guys really need to stop using that as an obvious crutch when you throw it in UNNECESSARILY (see: Kerry, John). Did you know he served in Vietnam?

Sorry, I will not go on the defensive. Your opinion means no more than mine and vice-versa. No one claimed you didn’t support the troops. You guys REALLY need to stop playing that “oh, they’re claiming that I don’t support the troops” game. Makes me take you less seriously than I probably should.

I personally find it telling that John McCain (the only Presidential candidate who has been tortured) is speaking out against it.

I do too.

He’s also speaking out against abortion. Does that make a difference, or does his opinion count more just on this topic?

This is about putting forth guidelines for the folks on the front line who are actually doing the ‘dirty work’ for all of us & making sure that they’re given all the tools that they need & that they’re not doing the wrong thing in hopes of getting the best outcome.

(1) Torture as a tactic does very little for winning of “hearts and minds” as we used to say. We also lose the moral “high ground” here by becoming just as evil as those we oppose.

(2) There is no evidence that torture “works” (if one means obtaining accurate information from a person being detained and interrogated).

(3) Please don’t lecture me about supporting the troops in Iraq — I served 20 years and 4 months in the US military.

I would recommend reading this column from the Washington Post by Anne Applebaum:

The Torture Myth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

I personally find it telling that John McCain (the only Presidential candidate who has been tortured) is speaking out against it.

As I have said, I just marvel at the way two people can look at the exact same thing and see it so differently.

and you are willing to take the chance of acting on bad information and suffering whatever consequences arise from that -

That’s the case even if you politely ask them and they answer, though, isn’t it? The goal is to get credible intel, yes.

I don’t think it’s right to try to define it down, away from torture

Fine by me. Big country, lotsa opinions.

Idon’t like Sully, but I do like the fact that the court case he cites has nothing to do with today’s politics. I think it adds weight to the precedent.

Mississippi state law in 1926 has zero bearing on USMCJ in 2007 or what constitutes war crimes. My point is that Sullivan will grasp for anything - in this case, the one law in MS in 1926 that he would dare to accept as non-bigoted (everyone who disagrees with St. Andrew is a bigot, you know) - in order to make a present-day political point against this administration. You know as well as I that we could throw the MS law book on the floor & pick out a law at random & Sullivan would decry its bigotry and hatred (I feel compelled throw in a ‘vile’ reference, too).

then make that case

I think it’s a sellable one. I think the nation at large (just a guess) is more in line viewing that it’s wrong to waterboard, say, a Russian soldier that was caught stealing CIA secrets while they’d be more willing to accept that waterboarding KSM in order to find out Al Qaeda’s plans is necessary part of the WOT. Like I said, a guess, but if someone can say that the Democrats’ maneuvering on the S-CHIP program is winnable, I guess I can say that waterboarding defined terrorists is winnable, as well.

Then again, I thought that George Allen would win re-election, so what do I know?

I personally don’t think that a terrorist enemy combatant is to be offered the same accordances as a common criminal or a legitimate prisoner of war, but I could be wrong….

From what I can tell of article 4 of the Geneva conventions, you are probably right, depending on how narrowly you define terrorist. I don’t know the US law that covers that area, but I suspect there is some similarity. Here are my problems:

Historically, waterboarding is torture - it could likely even fall under the “mock execution” ban of the geneva conventions, since it makes the victim believe he is dying. Even if you want to do it to Osama to get info, after all other efforts have been given every due chance to work and have failed, and you are willing to take the chance of acting on bad information and suffering whatever consequences arise from that - I don’t think it’s right to try to define it down, away from torture. I don’t like Sully, but I do like the fact that the court case he cites has nothing to do with today’s politics. I think it adds weight to the precedent. I think that if you really see the need to torture under those circumstances then you should be sure the law allows it - only under those circumstances - and be honest that this is what you are doing.

Going back to what I quoted from you above, if you allow “harsh interrogation techniques” short of torture on “‘terrorist’ enemy combatants” (having been duly identified as falling outside of the article 4 definition of POW by a “competent tribunal” as required by article 4, then make that case. But watch out for schysters & shills getting on the T.V. and telling you that’s what we’re doing when we’re actually picking up people as described in your quote - conveniently labeling them “terrorists” - and sending them to Abu Graib or Eastern Europe or Egypt or wherever to be tortured.

That said, I, for one, am loving the notion that Andrew Sullivan is pointing to 1926 Mississippi for what constitutes proper legal precedent (guess what was happening to gay males practicing sodomy back then, LEGALLY?). The guy really does latch onto the first thing that fits his emotional needs, doesn’t he?

I don’t consider waterboarding “torture”

And this is what fascinates me the most about the discussion. I am more like the 1926 Mississippi Supreme Court. It would have never occurred to me that there would ever in this country be an argument that waterboarding is not torture. The fact that waterboarding is torture is as self evident to me as the hand in front of my face on a sunny day.

But while it might have been torture back in 1926 the government and many, many, many Americans do not believe it is torture in 2007.

I guess it should not be surprising that over time standards and definitions do change.

Maybe in the question “is waterboarding torture?” it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

“…Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.”

…because it sounds like they’re making it up like they believe it must be like. How could they say, “can leave no lasting physical damage” and then say it could cause lung damage or brain damage? How can anyone read something like that and not immediately be suspicious of the source?

Yet there are probably hundreds or thousands of people that might read the article, not consider the logic of the statements, and shake their heads sadly while saying, “Oh, terrible…horrible…inhuman….” This is why we have to read what we read, and consider the logic of the statements - not just the source.

From every description I’ve read of it (that seems reasonably accurate) I don’t consider waterboarding “torture” any more than solitary confinement or humiliation.

This is about putting forth guidelines for the folks on the front line who are actually doing the ‘dirty work’ for all of us & making sure that they’re given all the tools that they need & that they’re not doing the wrong thing in hopes of getting the best outcome. I couldn’t care less who sits in the oval office when it comes to this subject and I couldn’t care less who comes out “on top” of the political debate and I couldn’t care less about trying to capitalize on the “oh, woe is me and what those @#$s have done to my country, which will be righted if only you vote for MY GUYS” mentality that is nothing but mindless emotion driven by political pettiness & hatred.

Which, obviously, is the minority position…