Linkmeister

Fact is, the interrogations at Gitmo have stopped long, long ago... no one there has any useful information, and with few exceptions, never did.

The Army Field Manual on interogations (30-15, IIRC) complies with the Geneva Conventions, and has for decades, no clarification needed.

The so-called civililzed world concluded that torture was (1) barbaric and (2) ineffective, around 200 years ago, although it is coming back... the Communists used it for its actual purpose: to get people to confess TO ANYTHING.

Only a mental defective, and we seem to have nothing but that category in our civilian leadership, would even dream that torture had any conceivable use in getting actual useful information.

So... we stain our reputation, get local populations whose support we need to hate us, AND get no useful information, as well as making ourselves and our soldiers international pariah...

Typical Rovian win win situation, because most Americans are too stupid to have figured any of this out either, and think this is all a game about "getting tough".

I guess if Congress won't condone Bush's torture program....they're with the terrorists. I agree with talking dog that the rules about torture are already clarified in G.C.

Now that we know explicitly what the President's bill advocates (cold rooms, forced standing for a long period of time, sleep deprivation, grabbing a suspect's shirt, slapping a suspect's belly, and using loud noise and bright lights) do you think you ought to back off of this position? Or are any of those specific things torture? I'm not a big fan of the belly slapping, but the rest don't bother me at all and I don't think I could call belly slapping torture. Which, of them, bother you? Which are torture.

I've been told by experts, including trained interrogators, that torture doesn't work. The information gained through torture is usually whatever the prisoner thinks you want to hear, rather than what's true. So you may just end up chasing false leads; what good is that?

If none of the things listed is torture, then it's irrelevant whether torture is ineffective or not.

It does not seem possible that torture never works. I can believe without any difficulty that there are men and women who cannot be tortured into giving up what was hoped for. But I also don't believe there are none who wouldn't yield to torture.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of torture (which is the sort of thing that, rereading, I can hardly forgive myself for feeling any need to say). Whether it's useful or not, I'm not in favor of it. But I think detainees should be interrogated. And I don't find it barbarous to keep them awake longer than they'd like, or deny them air conditioning.

If it's solely an argument over effectiveness of methods, then the word torture is way too loaded. If it's not, if this actually is an argument about torture, people who use that word have a responsibility to define the term. And explain why Britney Spears' music is legitimately torture.

I'm all in favor of interrogation. It's been standard procedure by the cops and the FBI for years. The method that's been found to work best for getting viable information from prisoners is to ingratiate yourself with them; make them think you're a friend or at least not an enemy. It may take a little time, but the info is better.

As to Ms. Spears' "music." I'll leave it to you whether it qualifies as such. The volume at which it's played is the issue in question, I think.

So, that's a big no on reconsidering calling the things on that list torture? Or saying that, because he's seeking clearance for the use of those method's, the POTUS is advocating torture?

Oh well. Some day there'll be another Democrat (or a member of whatever party springs from the ashes of the current one) in office, and we'll all go back to agreeing that the U.S. retains its position of moral leadership. I'm looking forward to it, in a way.