Which specific techniques yielded useful information, at this point we don’t know (at least I don’t).

But the CIA does. And as their purpose is to effect accurate disclosures from hostile witnesses and not to “hurt bad guys” we can be reasonably assured that the only methods used repeatedly are methods which yield good results repeatedly. The question is who are we trying to protect with our laws? Our soldiers and intel officers or enemies of the United States? We certainly aren’t trying to protect all of humanity. Anti-torture legislation should be constructed give clear guidance to interrogators as to the red lines they may not cross and allow them as much latitude before that line as is possible. It should not be constructed as a means of protecting our enemies from our interrogators. This is the key disagreement in philosphy here and the reason Democrats and post modern libs are so fuzzy on details when it comes to this stuff. It’s also why they tend to conflate harsh, but legal tactics they disagree with and blatantly unlawful behavior everyone disagrees with. It’s the pretense that they aren’t asking for more protections for terrorists.

Taranto said:

(a) that any harsh interrogation amounts to torture, and (b) that torture cannot yield useful intelligence.

None of us believes that the CIA are inflicting french pedicures on inmates in its secret prisons. Whatever techniques they are using works; there’ve been actual terror plots foiled as a result. If someone insists on calling harsh interrogation techniques torture, then he must admit that torture works. The logic is inescapable.

You got distracted by the parenthetical

This column accepts the president’s assurances that the techniques the CIA used did not amount to torture–

and missed the logic lesson.

1. What we did works.
2. We do not torture.

If you think what we did is torture, then you admit that torture works, because what we did works. Unless you also think that what we’ve done with KSM and the likes has not worked. Then, I can’t help you.

This column accepts the president’s assurances that the techniques the CIA used did not amount to torture–but if you disagree, then you have to admit “torture” works.

I agree with the Drifter that there is no logical syllogism here.

I also think it’s a good and interesting discussion to have regarding what constitutes torture and whether it is ever effective or justifiable. I don’t think that name-calling and such is helpful.

A just war is defensive.

did anyone else catch that?

drifter, does that mean that we must wait for an attack before going to war? does that mean that we should wait for Iran or NK to drop a nuke? is there EVER a just cause (in your liberal mind) for pre-emptiveness? I guess you would just have us wait for a terrorist to blow up some refineries, or for them to drop a nuke on NY, LA, Chicago or Houston. I guess it’s not enough for you that we have a president who actually WANTS to protect American lives from further terrorism.

But substance isn’t something you’re “real” enough to handle. The notion that vaguely defined terms should stand in the breach defending Americans from terror and “the corruption of the interrogator’s soul” to quote another post-modern liberal is simply stupid. The President has told Congress to define what we actually can and cannot do.

This is not out of a desire to flay men alive or rape their daughters in front of them, but in order to protect those who carry out American interrogations from harrassing lawsuits filed in the thousands. Lawsuits filed to obstruct American foriegn policy which complainants cannot change through elections. American interrogators must be protected from fringe radicals who would seek to inhibit them in the execution of their duties because laws against torture are left without the hard, clear definitions necessary to action. A man cannot retrieve information from an unwilling witness if he is worried about whether he’s going to draw a Carter appointee suffering from BDS when he gets sued by the ACLU on behalf of Khalid Sheik Mohammed for leaving him in isolation for a week and then subjecting him to Metallica’s Reloaded at 70 decibles for three days and then entering the room and announcing that he is with the Jordanian security services and he going to want some answers to some questions…or else.

What? You would dare to torture him so?

I think that spineless cowards like drifter should be marginalized, mocked, and ridiculed at each and every opportunity.

And you compare Bush to Hitler with your analogy and then say you’re not comparing Bush to Hitler. Nice try. For any person with an ounce of moral judgement, it’s quite a stretch to understand why Sheehan would fantasize about killing Bush as an infant. Quite a stretch indeed. Because, you see, George W. Bush didn’t kill Casey Sheehan.

Or do you think that he did?

A just war is defensive.

Who is that? Sun Tzu?

You’re joking, right?

Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:29 PM

Umm, no, I wasn’t.

the “cruel, inhumane, or degrading” infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime.

It’s very easy to cut-n-paste, Drifter. See I just did it. The question becomes, I think, how do you define the terms being used? Noticeably absent from your diatribe are any such definitions.

Others have pointed out that torture has been defined down, such that wankers like you can scream that yelling at someone is “torture.” Frankly, that qualifies you (and Sully) for the Darwin Award. Anyone so stupid as to remove all interrogation techniques from our arsenal not only deserves to die, but should be nominated to move to the front of the line.

Our genetic tree needs some serious pruning….

…why you’re fine with Cindy Sheehan fantasizing about killing President Bush…

Fine with it? Jesus, who said I was fine with it? I just said that it wasn’t a stretch to understand why she’d have such fantasies. Like some Jewish friends I have that have talked about how cool it would be to be able to kill Hitler at his birth. And no, I’m not comparing GW to Adolph.

You need to explain whether self-defense is in and of itself enough to wage war.

I needn’t explain anything of the sort, so quit setting up the straw man. We were talking about torture, not waging war. A just war is defensive.

Right, so let’s have Alberto Gonzales define it for us, shall we?

No, let’s have Congress define it. That’s the topic.

The United States ratified the treaty in 1994

You’re joking, right?

The United States ratified the treaty in 1994 but took a reservation to the convention’s addendum on the definition of torture, deferring to the U.S. Bill of Rights’ Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.

And–is self-defense reason enough to wage war? Answer the question.

You need to say a great deal more, you moral cretin.

You want it to take a position other than haughty moral superiority? Something it might have to defend, or worse yet forces concession? No way.

“Cruel, inhumane or degrading” isn’t a workable standard.

…Under that definition, torture is anything a lawyer or judge says it is

Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 1:18 PM

Right, so let’s have Alberto Gonzales define it for us, shall we? Oh, and you didn’t seem to get this little bit from the link:

The United States ratified the treaty in 1994

You need to say a great deal more, you moral cretin.

The Apologist on September 7, 2006 at 1:14 PM

Need I say more?

What, Pablo?

Your little dance is pretty well played out, THeDRiFTeR. That’s what.