It's true that opposing torture has a real cost in terms of innocent blood. But so did supporting the Iraq war, and we did it because in the long term it was worth it. In the long term, it saved lives.

But, but but ....

You haven't told us whether you think Andrew would be FOR torture if the Catholic Church was holding gay preists hostage and threatening to cut off their genitals.

Oh, rightnumberone, you silly goose.

Under those conditions, Andy would support it only if the priests, once freed, could get married afterward.

Do we have to explain everything to you?

I can see at least two you didn't address:

1) Knowing that they will be tortured will make terrorists less willing to surrender, or to be taken alive.

2) Torture provides unspeakably bad PR in what is at least partly a war of image.

And, if you allow slippery slope arguments:

3) Establishing a cadre of torturers and torture chambers will tend to make the US Government more tolerant of torture over time, to the point it might be expanded beyond foreign terrorists.

Thanks, but I'm not a big fan of slippery slopes. Yes, torturing terrorists could lead to torturing criminals in the US and then lead to torturing political opponents; and, I suppose, bombing Fallujah may lead to President Hillary! bombing the Cato Institute.

I find your first argument silly. These guys often blow themselves up to avoid capture. Further, surrender is only contemplated when you have almost no chance of surviving a fight; so, what exactly? Some terrorists are going to force us to kill them rather than give themselves up?

By dying, they deny us the information that your preferred rule ("no or almost no coercion") would deny us anyhow. You really think these guys are going to talk if we treat them nicely? Do Mafioso typically talk when arrested? No, they don't. Professional, hardened criminals (of which terrorists are the worst of the worst) tend not to talk unless you use more stringent methods of loosening their tongues.

As for bad PR: Yes, it's bad PR. You know what else is bad PR? Allowing these subhuman monsters to kill innocent people.

I'm sorry, but I think this comes down, ultimately, to whether you categorize these people as human. I don't. They are inhuman monsters of their own creation and I have less concern for their well-being or comfort than I do for a man-killing shark, which at least one can say did not make a conscious, moral choice about killing human beings.

SparcVark --

1) Then kill them on the spot.

2) Keep your torture practices secret. Don't cave in to watch group types that want to have a look at your prisons. Suspend and put up for bid the licenses of publicly-subsidized U.S. broadcasters that consistently transmit information detrimental to the war effort (if NBC, CBS and ABC want to rail against the U.S., let them 'speak truth to power' on their own dime), and enact alien and sedition laws to control reporters and terror-symp-pseudo-intellectual war critics that step over the line.

3) Torture domestic terrorists as well, if necessary to acquire crucial information.

There, that wasn't so hard, now was it?

In short, fuck these guys. They mean business, and we should too.

That was one of the most well reasoned arguments I've heard yet from a lay person, Ace. It further proves that hand-wringing knee-jerk opponents to any form of coercive interrogation have no excuse for being so ignorant of even the foggiest notion of how war time tactical intelligence gathering works. An Army simply cannot establish combat doctrine without the intelligence to do so. In the case of a terrorist war, that intelligence is even more important. So by all means, let's further handicap our guys' methods of gathering the intel just to please gutless wonders like Andrew Sullivan.

Knowing that they will be tortured will make terrorists less willing to surrender, or to be taken alive.

Harsh treatment is the exception, not the rule. As for willingness to be taken alive, the kind of folks who would be candidates for getting roughed up or even (theoretically) tortured already have no problem meeting up with their 72 virgins. They kind of like the idea.

Torture provides unspeakably bad PR in what is at least partly a war of image.

You are almost certainly overstating the PR in a part of the word where torture, the real kind, is common. The PR issue is mostly domestic and better addressed with a spirited defense of methods than caving to the dishonest and morally vain elements who are currently framing the issue.

if you allow slippery slope arguments:

Not so fond of them, myself. The slippery slope argument is one that has us fretting a change of temperature this morning because it could mean we will all be baked to death by tomorrow. The arguments are almost always about taking judgment calls away from competent adults. Not convincing at all.

Ace, I would like your thoughts on the "taking the high road" argument, a favorite of asshat lefties, to wit: (said in a pompous voice) "Why, this is America. This isn't about them, this is about us. We don't torture people here in America. We're better people than that. Don't you know that torturing terrorist detainees makes us just like them?" Etc.

1) Knowing that they will be tortured will make terrorists less willing to surrender, or to be taken alive.
Conversely, knowing that they will not be treated harshly enough will make US soldiers less likely to capture known terrorists in a combat situation. No sense risking your neck to raid a house when you can just JDAM it down or fire a HEAT round in the window and call it a day.

I don't accept (I know this is one of the arguments, the moving goalpost definition of torture) that any of the techniques I have heard to date are torture. In the interests of being clear, that is water-boarding, sleep deprivation, physical temperature discomfort (very cold room), water-boarding, drugs, isolation, humiliation, or loud music or yelling.

I don't call any of that "torture".

Hedley Lamarr: You said water boarding twice.

Applicant: I like water boarding.

preview is your friend.

Ace, I would like your thoughts on the "taking the high road" argument, a favorite of asshat lefties, to wit: (said in a pompous voice) "Why, this is America. This isn't about them, this is about us. We don't torture people here in America. We're better people than that. Don't you know that torturing terrorist detainees makes us just like them?" Etc.
OregonMuse,
My response to that, if you want it, would be that no one is asking santimonious liberals to do a goddam thing. We've got plenty of guys willing to do the heavy lifting of defending this country. All we want liberals to do is shut the hell up and let them do it without shrieking like teen age girls at a scary sleepaway camp. So they should spare us the moral outrage. Even our roughest tactics are meted out with consideration of a bigger picture. These terrorists torture and murder out of nothing more than sadism.

The idea that trained interrogators are simply taking a terrorists' say-so as to details of the operation -- and then, I suppose, simply arresting or killing everyone in an identified "safe-house" without staking that supposed safe-house out to confirm it's a terrorist meeting-place -- constitutes the imputation of malicious, malignant stupidity to what are almost certainly men of above-average intelligence.

And yet that is exactly what these highly nuanced lefties do because, of course, they are smart and everyone else is stupid - particularly military guys.

Ace:

Find it as silly as you want, but the US has been taking buckets of terrorist prisoners thus far. The US used to have a rep of treating captured folks very humanely, probably something that may well have influenced some terrorists to put up their hands when surrounded. Not everybody we're up against is a fanatic. Knowing that you'll be tortured will likely make some terrorists blow themselves up and/or save the last bullet from themselves instead of surrendering. I think it's fair to consider lost intel from them as against additional intel from torture.

For example, the CIA apparently waterboarded info out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Now Zaraqui is reputed to be wearing a bomb vest 24/7 so the same won't happen to him.

As to my second argument, think about it. How much ground did the Abu Graib scandal cost us in Iraq? How much domestic, foreign, and Iraqi support bailed on us after that? How much do you think we'll lose if we start openly torturing captives? What impact do you think the inevitable first case of the US torturing a demonstrably innocent captive will have? Good luck making it a big secret - you've seen how far that's gotten us to date.

Also, I figured I'd bring up this as support for the position that non-coercive interrogations often supply more information than one might expect:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10417

Note that one of the interrogators profiled was working with Japanese POWs in World War 2, not a category of prisoner I would think it would be easy to get to start talking.

Is this really the kind of power we want to hand over to the CIA?

And should we start torturing regular civilian criminals for information, too?

How much ground did the Abu Graib scandal cost us in Iraq? How much domestic, foreign, and Iraqi support bailed on us after that?

The answer is NONE, Zero, Zippo... Show me someone who changed their attitude on the war because of this unlawful incident that was correctly prosecuted and I'll show you a lier.

er... I mean "liar"

"I think this comes down, ultimately, to whether you categorize these people as human. I don't. They are inhuman monsters of their own creation"

Nonsense. Of course they are human. Lots of humans deserve to be beaten until their noses bleed buttermilk. And that's just the people who drive while talking on their cell phones.

By the way, SparkVarc has an interesting fantasy life. For one thing, he seems to live in a world where terrorists actually "surrender." From what I have been reading of our fine human brothers of the explosive persuasion, those who are actually captured by our forces are just that, captured, as in, they are most involuntarily removed from the position of battle and all the splody, killy devices they like.

SparkVac,

AbuGhraib lost us tons of ground, buta lot of the "techniques" used there weren't exactly professional and that's why it looks so bad.

Also, ban the cell phone cameras or other cameras would be rule no. 1.

I'm sorry, but I think this comes down, ultimately, to whether you categorize these people as human. I don't.

Well, you know who definitely are human? The CIA. And we're giving them an awful lot of power based on blind faith that it won't be abused. I'm sure it's not being abused right now. But in the future? I'm not so sure.

I think we need to hand a transparent government down to the next generation. The consequences of failing to do so might not matter during our lifetimes, but they could be very dire someday. I know many of you don't buy this slippery slope argument. But I do. We're not free because it's America's destiny to be free. We're free because we were given a limited government and we kept it that way, despite the enormous cost to us at times.

Off-topic:

One of my pet peeves when talking about these issues with leftists is that they always try to inappropriately bring Gitmo into it. For example, they'll give a long list of abuses that have occurred in detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then conclude by complaining about Gitmo. But Gitmo is not in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's very different circumstances. Nor have there been the same kind of abuses. Most of the problems in Iraq and Afgahnistan (e.g. Abu Ghraib) have been due to poor oversight of untrained young stressed out soldiers.

SparcVac / SJKevin,

If you care to, take the points you've made in comments, pretty them up a bit into essay form, and I'll put them in a post, so both sides of conservative opinion are offered here.

I still think you're crazy-wrong, but what the hell, I love posting words I exerted no work in composing myself.

Well, that's nice of you, Ace. I'll try to write something up that isn't too long-winded or whiny, but I doubt it will be much good. I don't do this for a living.

The argument that bugs me the most isgoes along the lines of: "torturing the terrorists, um, insurgents means that if any of our guys are captured, they'll be tortured too."

Read a history book. When is the last time our enemies *didn't* torture or generally abuse US POWS?

How much ground did the Abu Graib scandal cost us in Iraq?

Well, I don't know, but if it's not zero it is entirely due to the publicity and handwringing.

Wikipedia is technically correct in saying the Army's investigation began in January 2004, but factually wrong. The military has two levels of investigation, and the first one is surprisingly informal. (That's because if it turns out to be revenge or "he said she said" they can drop it without starting the paperwork. No harm, no foul.) Those of us who follow the military knew in October 2003 that something bad had happened and the Army was investigating it. January 2004 is when the people were formally charged and court-useful evidence began being gathered.

When the crap hit the public media, the Army had already commenced legal proceedings -- serious, court-martial stuff, not NJP -- against the principals, including the CO who got canned. Nothing changed about the punishments as a result of the public furore. In fact, nothing changed as a result of the media circus. The only thing it accomplished was to hand the monkeys more feces to fling.

For those who find it important that nasty crap like that not happen on the military's watch, the media circus was in fact counterproductive. The military has ways of emphasizing that certain behaviors are not encouraged. Resentment of the nasty tone and general unfairness of the coverage likely has blunted the edge of that message, making future abuses more likely rather than less.

As for torture as an issue -- neither attack nor defense from either side serves any good purpose whatever. Defense is always ten times (or more) more expensive and difficult than offense. Giving up a weapon, and letting your enemy be sure you have given up that weapon, means you have saved yourself 1 unit and your enemy 10 units, which he can then redirect into his own offense, costing you 100 units to defend against. Bad bargain, whether the "units" are dollars or moral/ethical points.

What we want is for the enemy to be unsure. It's a weapon. When Achmed gets strongarmed, we want him to think the worst so as to encourage him to try to ingratiate himself. The experience of strong people like John McCain is totally irrelevant. The scare isn't aimed at the McCains or the Zarqawis. It's aimed at Private Snuffy -- or Achmed al-Wadi, Boy Jihadist. Affecting the big guys is a bonus when you can get it. If Zarqawi really does go around in Semtex underwear to stave off being captured, he can't be comfortable sleeping in that outfit. (Can he perhaps be convinced that soaking his genitals in kerosene wards off Blackhawks?)

We don't, institutionally, do torture, and the real story (as opposed to the media/left "narrative") of Abu Ghraib illustrates that. Which is the way it should be. But the public dialogue about it accomplishes nothing. "Wingnuts" are not going to get the idealistic, egotistical, chauvinist Leftists to admit that anything outside the experience of an Assistant Professor of Fuzzy Studies at the Charles River Gabfest&Beer Bust exists let alone needs allowance for; "Moonbats" are never going to convince hearty macho jingoists that panties on the head and sports they pay to participate in are "torture". The two universes have different fine structure constants, and don't intersect. The only thing the public debate accomplishes is to weaken a useful weapon, and it's going to cost a lot to defend against the result of that.

Regards,
Ric

Terrorists Will Lie When Questioned, Or Mix Enough Fiction In With Fact To Make Their Statements Useless As Intelligence.

I agree that this is a big canard, and a shallow one at that - the kind of thing a poser would say as a method of escaping from a debate - ejector seat style - upon discovering that they've gotten in over their head intellectually and are in immiment danger of being exposed as a clueless airhead.

Torture is for real, not a party trick where the subject can win by "gaming the system"; you are repeatedly reduced to an animal state and made to suffer pain and terror except for brief interludes when you are answering questions - with specific details like names, places, events etc. The results of multiple sessions are cross checked against eachother and any disparities (and there will be many if you are being less than 100% truthful, because in an animal state only the truth can be repeated 100% accurately 100% of the time), will result in worse treatment, ultimately breaking you down and squeezing out the info desired. After confirming your answers to be consistent, they will then obviously be investigated to see if they bear out, adding a second layer of screening to the process and often netting additional subjects from whom additional info can be extracted, compared to yours and etc ultimately morphing into a growing pool of info.

It sounds brave/enlightened/what have you to say "torture doesn't work" but the reality is self-evidently otherwise and for someone like John McCain to throw his name behind this chant is just sad.

I'm frustrated by this whole arguement.

It began when we allowed the left to get away with mis-labeling interrogation as torture. It isn't, and it never has been. Normal, average people were shocked and outraged when we saw the Abu Graib pictures and told that it represented "US policy, as a mater of course". It didn't and still doesn't.

It was a sick little sex-cult run by a degenerate misfit who, incidentally, would otherwise be hero amongst the people who pretend outrage because they know that such behavior actually does outrage the vast majority of 'normal' people.

What we do IS NOT TORTURE. It just isn't. And it never has been.

At the very worst, it is a escallation of force mitigated by the value of the information gained in the saving of innocent life. But honestly, I don't even think it amounts to that 'bad' a thing.

Arguing over it just allows the enemy, and their sympathizers within our own borders, do deprive us of a necessary tool to win.

Incidently -- you seem to have skipped over the arguement that "if we torture them, they will torture our boys". That's a BS arguement too. The terrorists actually DO torture, even though -- as you correctly point out -- they can gain no new, usefull information using torture. They do it because they like it. And they will only stop when they are dead.

Torture DID NOT WORK with McCain. It didn't produce any actionable intelligence.

Citing an example of wanton brutality that produced falsehoods but not actionable intelligence is asinine.

After over four years of the GWoT I've come around to the conclusion that we should treat interrogation of captured enemy fighters the same way we handle any other aspect of war: the policy, whatever it is, should be tailored to the current war and the current enemy, rather than permanently codified into a one-size-fits-all law that could easily be rendered ineffective and/or counterproductive by the circumstances of the next war.

In the context of our current war, that means we could have one interrogation policy in Afghanistan, a somewhat different one in Iraq, and an altogether different one in the next theater of the GWoT wherever it may be. What is an acceptable technique in one theater may or may not be acceptable in the others, or vice versa. This approach not only tailors the policy to the local situation on the ground, but also serves to confound the enemy, particularly foreign fighters who may be expecting the same policy they observed the U.S. implementing elsewhere.

As for the "high road" argument, I agree that it is BS. There is no such thing as the "high road" in war; carrying out an effective war effort overrides all other considerations - including moral scruples - for any nation that is the least bit serious about winning any given war. That's not a case of America being evil; it's nothing more, and nothing less, than the nature of the beast that is war. Indeed, if war wasn't such an ugly endeavor, there'd be no such thing as pacifism.

The 'US = torturer' meme is by lefties, for lefties (including MSM and other enemies) worldwide.
It is a lie.

Ace said
True enough, if you simply began rounding people up off the street and torturing them you would have a very high risk of torturing innocents. But does anyone believe that is what's being done?
Um, yeah.
Lefties (including MSM and other enemies) worldwide.
And they believe that's what our Cops do here at home as well.
Free Mumia!! Free Tookie!! Free Leonard Peltier!!

Knowing that you'll be tortured will likely make some terrorists blow themselves up and/or save the last bullet from themselves instead of surrendering.

Actually, you're making this statement as if you can read minds. You don't know this any more than I do. And you're also making the mistake of inferring that we will torture ALL prisoners, regardless, which is horseshit.

As a former Marine, I was trained that the best way to defeat your enemy was to capture him and treat him better than his own country does. We were taught 'to kill with one hand and care with the other' since our kindess is our strong point.

So, I have no problem with my enemy knowing that if he surrenders to me, I will feed him and provide him some basic comfort but if he crosses the line or fails to help me in return, he's in for some major discomfort.