Via the NYT: In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' DeathsIt would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi...

This post doesn't completely solve it either, because the quoted officer was apparently approving of tactics that many of the people fulminating about torture have disapproved of. People have complained about loud music, for example, or other psychological methods, which the quoted officer specifically approves of.

I oppose torture. I don't oppose every sort of stressful interrogation, though. I'd like a clear line to be drawn. But the "opponents" of torture are doing no better a job in defining that line either.

But the thing is, what's the definition? In the spectrum ranging from the rack and Iron Maiden to unconscionable delays in providing room service, what counts as "torture?"

Regards,
Ric

One thing I am sure of is that we should be about something. If we pratice or condone tortue we put ourselves on a moral plane with the terrorists.

The fact that the Bush admin seems to consider torture an option should be troubling to us all. There is a lot more to being "the good guys" then simply proclaiming ourselves to be them.

That someone who, prior to his capture, was quite willing to blow himself up, in the process of killing others... and was willing to wait years to achieve this great goal, does not strike me at the kind of individual who will be swayed by three sqaures, and a roof and so on, to give up information about hgis freinds. Here is someone who has consigned himself to a harsh life and death. He'll be likely to simply wait out such impronsonment, while giving his captors nothing.

I suspect that torture is more likely to work under such conditions.