Seth,
Old Soldier, as usual, presents a reasoned essay.
The 'controversy' over prisoner interrogation reflects, I think American values and ethics, we
want something we are not ashamed of, and it is a legitimate debate to clarify methods and legal questions. (suspect CIA operates outside bounds
as usual, anyhoo). As far as I know, a workable
'truth drug' doesn't exist, so how can information be extracted? If we agree that the
Gestapo refined 'interrogation' to some maxima,
how come so many of their victims refused to talk? From another angle, old medieval women
confessed to all sorts of ludicrous 'sins' under torture methods for rooting out witches. If a
prisoner talks under duress, what is it worth?
Old Soldier, of course does not advocate either of the above, simply the 'rough' interrogations we use even in training our own troops code of conduct behavior. Perhaps, I'm missing the criticality of the controversy, if the GOP big guns are embroiled in internecine invective, whats the deal? [sorta glad they are] :)

BB --

The politicians are all doing what they do best -- posturing, playing politics, nobody wants to appear to either condone torture nor to be too lax on terrorists. All we're getting is sound bytes. Since Bush started his Eleventh Hour counterattack against the Democrats, they've been on the defensive -- he's made the left look pretty bad re the War On Terror, so they're scrambling to upgrade their collective image. They are capitalizing on already-proven-false GITMO rhetoric and Abu Graibh-generated hype to make it sound as if the Republicans endorsed torturing prisoners, so the folks on the right are scrambling to appear as moderate as possible.

And while this entire pavane of self-seeking "leaders" goes on, the safety of Americans is of secondary consideration.

As far as I'm concerned, the enemy is an evil entity that wages war on innocent civilians, tortures and decapitates and does so in the belief that it is doing G-d's work. The enemy is not a sovereign country, though it is financed by at least three of them, and has never signed off on the Geneva Conventions, which they violate in every way, shape and form anyway.

I don't believe this should even be up for debate. I think that, on an individual case basis, our interrogators need the latitude to do whatever they need to get information that might save lives and help us find and capture or kill terrorists.