This is McCain looking out for our boys? Giving them the vaguest guidance about what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do, with a 10-20 year sentence in case they guess wrong?

Indeed. See also.

Granted, John McCain has a much more legitimate reason to be concerned about the unregulated, untrammelled use of torture than 99.9% of those on the Left. He's actually been subject to it in his service to this country.

Not saying that he's correct.

Me, I'm pretty much entirely against any and all torture. (Yes, I realize that this position costs lives.)

I agree 100% with your criticisms of McCain and Sullivan's positions, though.

I think McCain is probably a pretty decent guy. He just lacks judgement, which is why I would never ever want him for president.

'keeping quiet about indelicate subjects.'

The general inability of people to shut their cakeholes is the cause of much social sorrow and political problems.

You tell me what torture is, and I'll tell you whether I support it. Which I guess is the point.

Remember that these ninnies think smearing ink on somebody is torture. So we'd sure as Hell better get some clearcut definitions on the table.

Loose shit: Chris Matthews, not Mattews.

Well, a lot of the loudest anti-torture voices are really just using the issue as a club to beat America with.

Unlike some here, I'm firmly in the anti-torture camp. But I'll tell you, red ink isn't torture, and "Koran abuse" isn't torture.

Our existing rules are sufficient. We just need to do a better job proactively preventing problems from popping up in the first place, and placing blame on leadership rather than just scapegoating soldiers.

Gitmo is just fine. The real problems have occurred out in Afghanistan and Iraq, with over-worked stressed out soldiers given little guidance from above. A lot of the loudest anti-torture voices deliberately obfuscate those abuses with Gitmo. Andrew Sullivan, I'm talking about you.

Uh, you guys missed the memo. Bush says the US does NOT torture.

You are SO 9 AM.

Don't feel bad. It seems Cheney wasn't told either.

Incidentally, we're all Israelis now. We are starting to have the same discussions as in Israel over the past 10+ years.

I just thought it was interesting. Stress positions etc. .... lots of what is in use now was developed by Israelis.

The problems, though, are much worse when those with the instruments are way undertrained, or are private contractors out of mil law. I'm not aware of ANY defense of what has been going on in those depts.

The problem is not that McCain wants to keep his fan club happy. The problem is that this legislation is introduced by people who are utterly incapable of weighing in on interrogation/approach techniques. John McCain doesn't know interrogation. To the best of my knowledge, nary a soul on Capitol Hill knows interrogation.

There is a understanding of sorts throughout popular American culture that interrogation, by neccessity, involves some form of torture or coercion. This is a fantasy, a myth propagated largely by a never-ending parade of movies and books depicting the strong conflicted hero doing "what must be done" to a prisoner to save the day. That's just silly. Coercion doesn't get people to tell the truth. It gets people to talk. Every piece of "information" a tortured or coerced detainee spits out is just as likely to be utter fantasy that will get Americans *killed* as it is to be real intel that saves lives. That's why we don't do it. It doesn't work.

People need to stop collectively defaming my profession. At the very least, admit that you have no real knowledge of the topic at hand, and that you're speaking from gross speculation.

"Incidentally, we're all Israelis now."

(a) There are worse things to be.

(b) That's been the case for - at least - four years and two months.

There is that great line Chris Penn gets to spit out in "Reservoir Dogs:"

"If you torture him long enough, he'll tell you who started the Great Chicago Fire. That doesn't necessarily make it fuckin' so!"

If torture doesn't work, then why do other countries without qualms use it? As a punishment alone?

A good read that covers a lot of this is "The Interrogators" which starts out as per cyfir and end up with a lot of questions. For example, most of the jihadis caught would talk more if they thought they would be sent back to their home country unless they talked.

hmmmmmm, doesn't
that mean they fear torture?

Also useful were stuff like threatening to deport their UK citizen family members back to Pakistan, etc. (that's pretty nasty too.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316871125/102-3866408-0827307?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Here's the book. And cyfir's right that there are many ways to skin a cat and torture would be the absolute last one.

Didn't they waterboard one guy to get info?

Tubino:

Why should we NOT torture terrorists? I for one think we have been far too gentle in this war so far. Terrorists are not covered by international law or the US constitution, so there is no legal reason not to use torture. As for the practical aspects, torture works. If it didn't it would not be used worldwide.

So, why are you not angry about the fact that the US does NOT torture terrorists? Does this not increase the risk of another attack on US soil? I would think you and other leftists would be demanding Bush protect you by any and all means necessary - what is the matter with you?

Bush says the US does NOT torture.

Yes. And did he define it? McCain wants to outlaw it. Did he define it? As far as I can tell, it means, "Something that makes me feel icky when I picture it." Not a very useful definition, expecially when the guy on the job isn't feeling too icky.

Tell us the outer limits of what you won't accept and we'll see if there is common ground. Short of that, I pay great deference to the guys on the ground.

Make that the "inner limits" or "what you will accept." Loose shit.

I cast my vote for reinforcing government guidelines against torture, particularly for the CIA. But like most here, the definition of torture is critical. Cold, sleep deprivation, scaring prisoner switless, or using religious/cultural soft spots against prisoners don't seem like torture to me. But it's pretty clear that unless there is a very solid management system in place, excesses are almost inevitable. I think more attention devoted to the training, oversight regulations, and chain of command would do more good that guidelines.

I'll throw out the first pitch on the whole business about defining torture with: "Stuff for which you would expect from the outset to get a hospital stay soon afterwards - even in a socialized health care system."

Ink on the arm? Not enough sleep? Bruised? Broken nose? Feeling cold? Your special book was dissed? Tough shit. Injected? Scared? Made to do the Limbada in your jock strap? Someone told you your mom turns tricks on the docks? Fuck you.

You were tough enough to try to kill ours. You were tough enough to go after innocent adults and children. You were tough enough to be helping people who hack the heads off noncombatants while they are still screaming. If you didn't have something at least approximating nads, we wouldn't be at this point.

If the guys in the field want to get creative, I defer to their read. So far, I haven't heard of any systemic or planned abuses that make me stop trusting their judgment.

The problem with the McCain bill is NOT that it attempts to prohibit torture. TORTURE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER U.S. LAW, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURS. The problem is that the amendment attempts to prohibit "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" by U.S. officials that, while not rising to the level of torture, would be unconstitutional if done in the U.S. (non-citizens outside the U.S. generally do not receive constitutional protections, and in the status quo might be subjected to harsh treatment otherwise prohibited in the U.S.).

This is an incredibly ambiguous standard, because (1) what constitutes unconstitutionally cruel treatment is the subject of constantly-evolving case law and (2) the standards used to determine whether treatment of a criminal suspect in the custody of U.S. domestic law enforcement authorities is unconstitutional are likely different than those that would be applied to the treatment of, say, a detainee in a war zone.

This isn't to mention that I suspect that most people don't WANT unlawful combatants and known terrorists detained abroad to be treated in the same manner that the U.S. treats criminal suspects in the U.S. (does an Al Qaeda official need to have a water break after every couple hours of interrogation?).

In short, at least part of the McCain bill is incredibly ambiguous and does something most Americans likely would oppose if it was not labelled an "anti-torture" bill.

Torture doesn't produce reliable information. Period. End of story. People use torture worldwide because when one person have absolute control over another, they will automatically begin to abuse the person they have control over. It's a natural human reaction to a prisoner-guard/interrogator situation. That doesn't make it right. People also use torture worldwide because it does make people talk, and people worldwide are not typically concerned with the truth.

That's what makes us different from "people worldwide." We *are* concerned with the truth. That's why we interrogate prisoners. And when you want the truth, you can't use torture, because there is no way, none, to ascertain the truthfulness and accuracy of the information.

Coercion is defined as "the use of, or threat of, physical or mental anguish to collect information." Bottom line - if your "approach" is talk and i'll make the pain stop, you're already dead wrong. If someone who understands the CAT and our present laws against torture wants to define "physical or mental anguish," I don't particularly mind. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is a political stunt at the expense of the interrogation profession.

Postscript - "Chris Mackey" is a grandstanding... person... who pulled whole chapters of that book out of the ether. It's no more a war memoir than the movie "Three Kings."