"If this is the worst that a terrorist gets, they get the 4-star treatment compared to what other countries would do."

First of all, these are not "terrorists". They are suspects. You've heard of innocent until proven guilty, right? One of the fine principles of American government?

Many of the detainees at Guantanamo were arrested on little or no evidence -- the accusation of a neighbor with a grudge was enough. About 200 Guantanamo prisoners have been released without charges. That's at least 200 completely innocent people we've tortured. There's still 500 more at Guantanamo, plus god only knows how many others hidden away in the other secret prisons.

Even setting that aside, this isn't "the worst" they get. I don't know why waterboarding gets so much attention; at various times they've also acknowledged using temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, and "stress positions" (forcing the victim to stay in a painful position for a long period of time). Not to mention the dog attacks, beatings, rapes and murders at Abu Ghraib. (If you're of short memory: "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." That was Senator Lindsey Graham. A Republican, before you ask.) All of those are torture, as far as I'm concerned. Or at the very least, cruel and unusual punishment. Which used to be illegal. Another fine principle of American government down the drain.

And about that "compared to what other countries would do" part... you've heard of "extraordinary rendition," right? We're shipping prisoners to those other countries to be tortured. Does it make it any less torture if we pay someone else to do it for us?

And even if you're enough of a monster to stomach all that, torture still doesn't work. Just as the reporter in this clip says -- "I was ready to submit, tell them anything." People will say anything to make the torture stop. Whether it's true or not. The information we get from these guys is absolutely valueless. Not a single terrorist plot has been foiled by this vile nonsense. Instead, we're creating terrorists, stirring up anti-American hatred and giving them a real reason for that hatred. Al Quaeda probably views all this as the best thing that could possibly happen for them -- what better recruiting tool for terrorist groups? What better way for America to live up to the "Great Satan" moniker?

Those perpetrating this are evil men. Those who support it are fools. Waterboarding is unamerican. We're supposed to be better than this. Wumpus, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Now I know you're a red-blooded Republican, Wump...you have absolutely no sense of humor.

And if you really believe this is "the same treatment" that they get at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, you're living in the same false reality Dubya's created for himself.

peretz, it's not only a question of protecting our own guys from torture, it's about the quality of "information" received during torture. Your hypothetical assumes:
1. the person in question is actually a "jihadist"
2. that they have relevant information
...and that certainly was and is not the case at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

It's been said that some of the "intelligence" the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq war was obtained through torture. That didn't turn out too well, did it?

Well, in response to Deathcow, I think you're underestimating what terrorists and people in general in the middle east know about what we do.

After allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib arised, they started dressing in orange jumpsuits like our "detainees" do, in solidarity with them in their propaganda videos. They watch television just like us.

deathcow, I'm confused ... you clearly don't think we should be there (I agree, at least to the extent that we shouldn't have gone in the first place, for what it's worth), but do you think it's okay to torture our captured "combatants" or not?

I think you're absolutely right about al Qaeda and other terrorist groups committ atrocities largely just because of our presence, bombings, etc, but I do think that our actions towards them contributes (i.e. it's undeniable that a ton of people in the Arab world, even those who were previously moderate, were upset by Abu Ghraib).

Also, though, I think we have to remember that we won't be fighting *just* "the war on terrorism" forever; there will be more "symmetric" enemies (nation states) whose actions will be guided by our previous ones - i.e. we torture, so they do on our prisoners.

Also (end of this long comment, I promise) - thanks, benjee.

Geneva covers the treatment of recognized enemy combatants in other nations' armed forces, not terrorist rogues captured on the battlefield.

Abu Ghraib was not My Lai just because liberals wish it was, and terrorists do not have any American legal rights, though liberals--including 9 incompetent Supreme Court justices--wish they did.

Hey Shays, you asshole, why don't you check your own voting record! Remember that time you voted to modify our obligations under Geneva Convention.

How about the amendments to your turd of a bill that you voted against.

9/28/06 Senate Rejected --Specter Amdt. No. 5087; To strike the provision regarding habeas review.
9/28/06 Senate Rejected --Rockefeller Amdt. No. 5095; To provide for congressional oversight of certain CIA programs.
9/28/06 Senate Rejected --Kennedy Amdt. No. 5088; To provide for the protection of United States persons in the implementation of treaty obligations.

That last amendment was submitted because your were saying that the US no longer follow Geneva Convention as applies to torture and rape. Well guess what asshole, now our soldiers no longer are afforded Geneva security, and you redefined torture and rape to ALLOW anything short of anal and vagina penetration.

So, yeah, NOW you are right, Abu Ghraib was NOT torture by your new asshole definition of it.

I think the Bush Administration is fine with rules so long as they can contextualize the rule to the point of absolute meaninglessness.

Case in point: Torture defined as that which "shocks the conscience" and subsequently defended by Rove, Bush, and company as a "clear" standard. Shocks whose conscience? Dick Cheney's? the Abu Ghraib wahoos? My conscience? Noam Chomsky's?

peretz:

Your argument reminds me of the French colonel's speech in The Battle of Algiers. If anyone has not seen that movie, drop the Sift and go get it.