Sigh. This is what I hate about the internet. Conversations take too long, and hastily-typed words can all to often be misunderstood without the inflection inteded behind them.
Permit me to clarify my positions on this entire issue.
I am not against the Geneva Convention. It has its purpose, which is perfectly noble. Were we at war with China, and were capturing uniformed soldiers of China, then I would support the Convention 100%.
My argument here is not against the Convention, and it is not FOR the use of torture, either. If this were a discussion as to the effectiveness of torture, then I would be all ears listening to what you think if for no other reason that you have at least one more year of experience in the general field than I'm ever likely to have. The idea that, given enough pain, anyone will say ANYTHING (accurate or not) is perfectly reasonable to me and a good enough argument to recommend against the use of indiscriminate torture when other, more effective and even humane, means are available.
I have always argued that since these vermin represent neither country nor flag, we should apply whatever means necessary to get accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence from them. If I can tickle them with a feather to make them talk, that's good enough. If I have to keep them awake for a week, fine. If I have work them over with a nine-iron, then so be it. Once that information is in-hand however, any further activity falls into the realm of sadism, and that goes beyond any line you or I wish to draw.
My argument here is against the ACCUSATIONS of torture, and the automatic assumption that not only HAS it happened, but that it CONTINUES to happen and with OFFICIAL sanction, and with particular brutality.
The people making the accusations are and always have been decidedly anti-American, giving US flak about the death penalty, supermax prisons, and the like. These people have an AGENDA. They take accusations by the prisoners themselves or propaganda made up either by leftists (yes, LEFTISTS. You don't see the folks on the right or middle doing this crap) and run with it without checking facts. The media picks it up and runs with it because it forwards THEIR agenda and sells copy. Remember the NYT article where they interviewed a "former Gitmo prisoner" who was alleging torture? Front page! Problem was, HE WASN'T. They would have known if they'd simply checked facts, but the story was what they wanted to believe, so they ran with it.
Where were all these bastards when our troops were being beaten silly by Saddam's troops during GW I? That was a war between nation-states conducted by troops in uniform, and our guys were beaten, forced to eat feces, and subjected to other TRUE tortures. Where was Amnesty International then?
In Vietnam (as you well know), our prisoners were REALLY tortured, and the same idiots who whine now about us were, back then, accusing those prisoners of lying (remember Jane Fonda at the Hanoi Hilton?).
So to begin with, I find the accusations to be politically, rather than factually, motivated. That immediately brings their credibility into doubt for me. Since those making the accusations have a track record of both being against the United States and of openly lying, I choose not to believe them, or at the very least to treat their accusations with extreme cynicism and give OUR forces the benefit of the doubt.
Second, the term "torture" has been flung around with such reckless abandon that it has lost its meaning. Putting a bag on someone's head or making him sit before a snarling dog or piling them up naked on top of one another is NOT TORTURE. Yes, it is conduct unbecoming, and those idiots who did it are being rightfully punished, but that is NOT TORTURE.
Being kept awake for prolonged periods, being questioned for long periods, being forced to stand for long periods is NOT TORTURE.
TORTURE is electric shock, sticks under the fingernails, cutting off fingers, being hung from the ceiling by your wrists while they are tied behind your back, and so forth. I think further descriptions are unecessary. You probably have either seen or heard about more than I'd ever WANT to.
So where does all this leave us?
1) We have an entire movement with an anti-American agenda taking what known terrorists and mass-murderers say and believing it, while accusing the United States (which, despite any of numerous failings you can name, is STILL the most moral nation on this rock) of all sorts of heinous acts. Our troops are compared to the Nazi SS or followers of Pohl Pot, but the killers in Gitmo are portrayed as victims. When those troops who step out of line are prosecuted and punished, we are accused of coverups. Meanwhile, the enemy gets a propaganda windfall based on lies and exagerations, and which costs him nothing to produce.
2) Acts which would be at home at any fraternity house prank (including the Service Academies) are elevated to "torture", thus inflaming the enemy and confusing those who seek the truth. Again, the agenda-drivers exagerate the facts, painting US as the bad guys. Menawhile, the enemy TRULY tortures anyone it captures and then MURDERS them, and the same accusers remain silent.
3) The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. They do not meet the definition you provided above. Sadly, they don't have to follow it either, but they don't and wouldn't anyway, so that's a moot point.
We have lost the language and our own freedoms are being used against us, and not just by the "official" enemy, but by his willing dupes here in our own country who seem to hate the leader of this country more than they hate those who murdered 3,000 Americans in one morning. That's not an exageration, either. Just listen to them!
Another thing. I am quite certain that the CIA and other interested parties have developed techniques (be they physical, chemical, or psychological) to break a person and make them sing like a canary without having to resort to what can legitimately be called torture. This is another reason why I reject the notion that we are "torturing" prisoners. Why bother? We don't NEED to anymore.
In closing (I really need to get back to work), I find that this entire issue is a combination of political opportunists fanning bogus flames, legitimate folks who feel outrage because they want America to take the high road (such as yourself), and a media that has its own agenda. I can (and do) highly respect those who want to ensure that America does the right thing, but I revile the others, and it's just a shame that so many of the legitimate are being misled by those others.
I will say it again: We should apply whatever means necessary to get reliable information in a timely manner. Beyond that point, anything else is simple abuse and should not be allowed. A lot also depends on what kind of information we're after. If we're looking for terrain information, that's one thing. If we're trying to stop a nuke that's being smuggled into Houston, that's quite another. Torture for its own sake is definitely one of the things we are fighting AGAINST, and I don't condone it in any way.
Why don’t we drop this. We probably agree on a lot more than we disagree and I doubt if I will change your mind on the rest. And I know you aren’t going to change mine.
No foul, man. We're brothers here.
I honestly don't think your mind needs changing. I don't think we're that far apart even on this point. If we really WERE torturing people for kicks, and there was proof, and it went all the way to the top, I'd be right there with you demanding action. I just don't believe that it is, and for the reasons I've given. Isolated incidents, perhaps, and those are properly dealt with. But to the extent of the accusations? Hell no.
On the last note: I am both glad and thankful that you never ran across those airport vermin yourself, but you know that too many of your brothers-in-arms did. It is undeniable. Unlike them, I thank you for whatever you did in that jungle that was for the good of our country.
CRAP, that was a long post!
ETA: Hey! You're in NC! You have any ideas how to take care of a lawn in this state?