"If we define "torture" as anything that causes the slightest discomfort to the terrorists, I can only imagine that we will wind up losing information that we would otherwise get."
Sure we will. But it is morally wrong to use pain to cause someone to tell you something and we have signed (and initiated) all kinds of treaties to that effect. We signed those treaties after we had fought Nazis. Al Quaida is not worse than Nazi Germany.
There is also a pracitcal advantage. We spend a lot of time trying to get other countriesto do what we want them to do. We will have less luck if they think we are evil and the world thinks torture is evil.
>But it is morally wrong to use pain to cause someone to tell you something and we have signed (and initiated) all kinds of treaties to that effect.<
What in the hell does that have to do with "degrading interrogation methods"?
Is it "degrading" to be imprisoned?
Is it "degrading" to miss Christmas with your mother?
Is it "degrading" to not have a sleepcomfort mattress?
If I were a GI again, the message to me would be, don't take any prisoners, because there's no up side.
Sure they are, Nazi Germany was an entity , or sovereign nation with men in uniform.
Al Queda is neither.
They are terrorists, using the threats of torture and cutting off of heads to further their aim of domination over the world. This has been the case of the fanatical Muslim for the last 1500 years or so.
If torture is needed to SAVE and PRESERVE American lives in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, we do it, and we do it in a way that the terroists understand.
To stop terrorism, you must become what your enemy fears. He fears not getting into Paradise. We had a policy at the turn of the last century to use any means necessary to subdue the Moros in the Phillipines. What was used? The threat of being buried in pigskins and the use of bullets dipped in pig fat.
It worked then and it will work now.
No we won't because no matter what we do someone, somewhere, will call it evil.
Some idiots will always protest Gitmo because that is what they do. Some idiot will always pass a resolution in some pissant town (Berkeley) because that is what they do. Some band of ragbags (Answer) will protest our actions to bring democracy to a country and liberate 25 million people, because that is what they do.
And there will always be a MSM to write, to frame the antics of the above idiots in such a light to make us look as bad as possible, because that is what they do.
We could give each person in the world a million dollars and some idiot somewhere would complain because the money is green.
Because that is what they do.
Yes, and no. While we cannot officially condone or participate in torture, we can always 'extradite' the person(s) in question and let our allies do the information extraction for us, using whatever means they deem necessary to have a fruitful outcome.
We get the information and our hands stay clean. Plausible deniability.
Chances are very good that the bearers of the most perishable intelligence will be aprehended closest to the war zone, and can be handed over to the 'local authorities' for 'processing' in an expedient fashion.
We follow the letter of the law, someone else provides the interrogation facilities and the personnel who will be well versed in the local language and customs. After a while, people will sing like canaries to avoid being turned over for processing.
It ain't a pretty picture, but it is the American way.
I don't believe we should cause terrorists pain. I have no problem with keeping them awake, making them stand, feeding them irregularly, etc to make them more malleable to interrogation. These things are not torture, and from what I've read .
But I doubt McCain's bill makes any differentiation. If all we can do is ask them questions, over and over, with no coercion at all, we'll lose information.