The frustrating thing for this conservative is the manner in which liberals even discuss the need for "torture". When I mention that it's healthy to have such a discussion I'm ridiculed rather than debated. When others talk about success of coercive techniques it digresses into pulling fingernails and blow torches.

If we're going to discuss the "need for 'torture'" then the various torture techniques need to be put on the table. If we need to torture then by-God let's not half-ass it.

Bright lines must be established for what is and is not "torture". Is loud music? Is isolation? Is water boarding? Grown ups ask these questions in a frank manner without the baggage that so many liberal thinkers drag in.

Bright lines had already been established for what is an is not torture or otherwise permissible with respect to people captured during war (and otherwise). It wasn't until Bush, Cheney, Addington and their addiction to executive power and secrecy came along who decided that things weren't so clear and then produced tranparently farcical legal opinions justifying what they wanted to do when things seemed to get muddy. IOW, grownups had already asked these questions and decided that none of these things were permissible. Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?

As a society open discussion of any topic should be encouraged not discouraged. It is obvious many who frequent this site do not see it the same.

Because this is exactly what the administration did when it decided that things were blurry when it came to the definition of torture in our statutes in treaties. It went to the Congress and said "we're not sure if techniques (a) through (z) are torture, can you please pass law telling us whether or not our current legal regime allows these?" Right? Nope, instead they did as I note above, contravened the law in secret. And why? Because they knew if they asked Congress to clarify they'd get slapped down.

As I stated before, people can lie to you under any type of interrogation but there are methods to shift out the truth. Also most will tell the truth under great pain or duress unless they don’t know which then they may make things up. It is usually easy to tell when they do. There are psychological reasons for this but I won’t get into those.

You and Steve made some very good points. However you said, “No one ever said that torture won't produce good Intel.” Read some of the previous post and the main article. “Stuart Herrington, a retired Army colonel and former professional interrogator, argues that torture is wrong and doesn’t work.”

So obvious some do claim it doesn’t work. My point is that it often does. Now I’m willing to discuss when and if it should be used. However how can anyone reasonable discuss that when they won’t acknowledge simple basic facts?

Why not keep it simple? Lets define torture as anything that you would call torture if it were being done to an American soldier by an enemy.

Bright lines must be established for what is and is not "torture". Is loud music? Is isolation? Is water boarding? Grown ups ask these questions in a frank manner without the baggage that so many liberal thinkers drag in.

As a society open discussion of any topic should be encouraged not discouraged. It is obvious many who frequent this site do not see it the same.

One last observation. The Colonel talks as if we are doing everything wrong when as far as I can see he wasn't there to actually see what happened or what is happening. Of course second guessing everything to do with the war has become something of a cottage industry. I just wonder how many other colonels would disagree with this one's assessment?

So from now on you guys need to stand for "whatever works." If we have to pull out fingernails, you're all for it. Electricity to the genitals? A-OK. A few runs of the blow-torch? Super. Any of those techniques applied to the terrorists' family, including young children? Fine by you. After all, what's a few mutilated and terrorized young kids in the whole of the TTBS?

Onward to victory for freedom!

The issue is, whether torture is superior to other methods in producing good intel, and whether torture has aspects that make it inferior. It's not superior -- you can get people to talk just fine without torturing them, if you show them some respect and behave cannily. (Look up Mark Bowden's article on how we nailed Zarqawi by cleverly interrogating our subjects.)

And torture has obvious bad effects I've described. If I'm not happy that you say your name is Wayne, and I want you to confess you're Batman, then I'll keep torturing you -- until you admit it.

The frustration shown by the colonel in your anecdote is precisely the kind of attitude that not only leads to torture, but results in torture's being used to yield false info. Obviously, the colonel wasn't going to take "dunno" for an answer. But sometimes (hell, most of the time) "dunno" is the truth.

Good example. You believe you can’t fly off a ten-story building because someone told you. However people do fly off of buildings. There are base-jumping parachutists, gliders, rocket packs, rotary wind aircraft and other methods to fly off buildings. Of course there are different definition of flying but it is clear it can be done.

Just because you can’t do something doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

Anderson

Yes there are examples when harsh interrogation techniques weren’t done properly and didn’t work. However there are many examples when it has. Including a few years ago of an Army Colonel that got into trouble for shoving a pistol in a capture face and told him to talk or die. The capture talk and save American soldiers lives. There are plenty example in history of it working.

But hey, just read the internets for how great coercion works. Guy's found in a NY hotel after 9/11 with a radio in his room, a special radio used to talk to pilots in flight.

Since the guy's Egyptian, our bad boys sit him down and tell him that if he confesses, fine, but if he won't confess, we'll make sure his family in Egypt gets "put through hell." Which, given Egypt's reputation for torture, is none too subtle.

So the guy thinks, "I'm screwed either way, so I'll save my family," and confesses -- yeah, sure, it's my radio, etc., etc.

Then a few days later, an airline pilot comes up to the hotel's desk and says, "hey, have you guys seen my radio?"

The Egyptian guy was innocent, but he confessed just from the *threat* that his *family* might be tortured.

Just think what he would've confessed to under torture! We could've solved the murders of JFK, Jimmy Hoffa, and Judge Crater!

So enough, please, with "we don't know how well torture works." We do. It works great for getting confessions ... to anything. No wonder the Inquisition, the witch-finders, and the KGB loved it.

Perhaps we shall never hear from him again, if the building he jumps from is tall enough--say 50 stories.

Hasta la vista!

Gee, where are the true conservatives when you need them? Y'know, the ones who make the case for eternal principles that should not flit away in the face of the crisis of the moment?

The Army colonel admits that he has never tried torture techniques. So how would he know if they work? He only knows what someone told him on it. The military has a great interest to keep their interrogators from using those techniques for the most part. One way to keep them from doing it is to tell them it doesn’t work so they won’t even try. That is what the military told us but talk to others that have use harsh interrogation techniques “HIT” and you will get a different story.

I've never tried jumping off a ten-story building in the hopes that I can fly. So how could I know if I can't? I only know that my mother told me I couldn't fly. She has a great interest in keeping away from flying for the most part. One way to keep me from flying is for her to tell me I can't so I don't even try. That is what my mother told me but when I talk to others that have flown using arm flapping techniques "AFT" I got a different story.

I'm jumping tomorrow to see what the truth is.

OMG! Can you believe what will happen of the democrats take over the white house? We are talking horrible consequences. Bill Clinton did his part by cutting the military significantly, then using the savings for deficit reduction, claiming what a brilliant economic plan he had. (And people believe him!)

Iraq and every Islamic terrorist we haven't yet killed will be gunning for us if dems take the white house. Then the dems will promptly dig a hole in the dirt and stick their head in it.

You know, JJ, maybe those "sophomoric principles" weren't such a bad idea after all.

Certainly, there's an ease that comes from adopting Kantian rules.