Are you then alleging that our government has sanctioned and performed such things in the current conflict?
Not at all. I'm noting that if "torture" to you means only barbaric practices like that, then by your own definitions McCain's comments are (1) perfectly reasonable, and (2) completely irrelevant, since the US (probably) doesn't do any of those things.
That you took exception to his remarks at all suggests that you
do realize that McCain was referring to "aggressive interrogation techniques" that actually are practiced by the US. But if you realized that, then your remark that you "thought I was talking about
real torture" didn't really make sense, since we were indeed all talking about such things as waterboarding.
In any case, you are speaking as if the Muslim in question is morally equivalent to the Western interrogator.
Definitely not. I'm acutely aware of the difference between the attacker and the defender. Though the defender might
descend to the moral level of his enemy if he really were, for example, ripping off fingernails, etc. The three possible objections to "aggressive interrogation" are:
1) When used on an Arab who turns out to be innocent (which is still the majority of those apprehended under suspicion), the infliction of torture is a crime. That's why due process was
invented, by the way.
2) Depending on the nature of the man's crimes, and the extent of the torture, it's cruel and unusual punishment. If you happen to have an honest-to-goodness terrorist murderer, I can't be bothered sparing sympathy for him, almost regardless what you do to him. But by torturing
suspects, to find out
whether they know something useful, without any semblance of a genuine effort to establish guilt first, you lose any justification that might proceed from his guilt. He isn't guilty; so far, he's just a suspect.
3) Torture is largely ineffective at generating useful intelligence, and especially in its extreme forms it dehumanizes the interrogator. It harms both the interrogator and the victim, without even fulfilling the purpose that ostensibly justifies it.
In other words, you are speaking as if a terrorist and a soldier are morally equivalent...
Definitely not. Self-defense good; initiation of aggression bad. There is no equivalence whatsoever between soldiers as defenders and terrorists as attackers. Some
individual soldiers, such as
Pfc Jesse Spielman, are no better than the terrorists. And it's no secret that I regard some in the administration as war criminals. But it would violate the very core of my libertarian soul if I morally confused attack and defense.
--Len.