« Vengeance is mine, sayeth the state | Main | Corrections »

Strategy or vendetta?

24 Apr 2008 07:58 pm

I find this argument thoroughly unconvincing. One could as easily argue that the purpose of torture is to satisfy our strategic objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proper answer to which is, who cares? It's wrong.

Consider the results of the firebombing of a city for which the justification was sapping the will of civilians to make war:

"We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from.

I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them.

Now my rnother possessed only a little bag with our identity papers. The basket with the twins had disappeared and then suddenly my older sister vanished too . Although my rnother looked for her immediately it was in vain. The last hours af this night we found shelter in the cellar of a hospital nearby surrounded by crying and dying people. In the next morning we looked for our sister and the twins but without success. The house where we lived was only a burning ruin. The house where our twins were left we could not go in. Soldiers said everyone was burnt to death and we never saw my two baby sisters again."

"Only someone who has been in such a sea of flame can judge what it means to breathe in such an oxygen-deficient atmosphere . . . while battling against terribly hot, constantly changing currents of fire and air. My lungs were heaving. My knees began to turn weak. It was horrifying. Some individuals, especially old people, started to hang back. They would sit down apathetically on the street and just perish of asphyxiation."
"Margaret Freyer, for instance, ascribed her survival once she had left the doomed cellar on the Struvestrasse--the streets were already like ovens--to the fact that she had chosen to wear knee boots when she went outside that winter night to visit a friend. In the heat, the tar on the streets melted. Others who tried to flee through this viscous quagmire rapidly lost their slip-on shoes, even their lace-ups, which stuck in the tar. Their feet were so badly burned they could no longer move. They died."
"Hundreds of desperate human beings, some already on fire, found their way to the Altmarkt. They plunged gratefully into the apparent safety of the cool, plentiful water. As the night wore on, however, the searing air of the surrounding conflagrations and the accumulated effect of all the burning human beings who had crowded into the reservoir began to have an effect. The heat within became intolerable, the air unbreathable. In the tank, hosts of survivors, many injured, many poor or nonswimmers, tried to clamber out again, only to find that the Altmarkt reservoir had not been built as a swimming pool. There were no bars or handles, no ladders. On the contrary, the sides of the reservoir were smooth cement, upon which it proved almost impossible to obtain a purchase.

. . . a very few of the strongest swimmers and nimblest climbers managed to get back out. The great reservoir in the Altmarkt was both a terrible place of struggle that night and . . . a watery grave for hundreds of unlucky people.

The next day, when rescue gangs cleared their way through the square, half the huge quantity of water had evaporated. A macabre ring of charred corpses surrounded the reservoir; those were the bodies of those who had not quite made it to the reservoir before they burned to death, or were overcome by fumes. In the Seidlitzer Platz tank, which was about fifty feet square, would-be survivors had crowded the water up to the rim--it was shallow enough to stand upright--until it could take no more. The next day they were still there, most still packed next to each other in orderly fashion. All dead of asphyxiation.

In smaller tanks, the water became so hot that the people in them were literally cooked."

These are mostly taken from Frederick Taylor's Dresden, which I highly don't recommend buying unless you enjoy vomiting. Keep in mind that these are the eyewitness accounts; presumably those who didn't survive saw even worse.

I simply cannot believe that we did this more in sorrow than in anger.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/18535

Comments (68)

Harry Truman, remarking upon what was being done to Japanese civilians said something like (and I think I'm being prety accurate), well, when you encounter beasts, you should treat them like beasts. Not a lot of sorrow there, although to be fair, he expressed some regret after the war.


The reality is, Dresden is going to look pretty mild compared to wars of the future.

Face it, Megan, we are exponentially increasing our numbers on a planet of finite resources.

Take a look at the environmental / ecological based explanations of what happened in Rwanda, extrapolate it to the world, but with the most terrible weapons mankind will have in the future, and you have the future. See Jared Diamond, "Collapse".

There is not a global consensus to solve problems like the looming crisis caused by peaking supplies of petroleum, nor more distant problems like global environmental change.

In the absence of a collective solution, the alternative is war.

Looking back, in the future, nuclear war will be seen as quaint, mild, and civilized compared to bio-weapons and other tools developed in the past decades.

We may end up with a rather short reign as the dominant species on this planet.

And what, exactly, is your point, Megan? That war is hell? That nations at war do terrible things?

We have rhetorically elevated information extraction techniques that--while clearly quite unpleasant--don't do permanent damage to their subjects, to the level of "torture". Now we are supposed to equate this "torture" with the firebombing of Dresden (BTW, how many of those "innocent" civilians we killed voted for Hitler? How many denounced their Jewish neighbors? I notice those questions never get asked.).

Is there no limit? Is there, at long last, no limit at all to the rhetorical excesses we are prepared to engage in in order to discredit the war effort?

There's a simple solution to all this--total, unconditional surrender to an aggressor. But it has to be said there are consequences.

Barbarism in war is always a case of the ends justifying the means. Your earlier point that war crimes will happen in war because it's war, and not because of the particular causes, still stands, along with your separation of the particular causes from the obligation to act morally.

There's an easier analogy that you could have used. Society will always have murder, rape and theft, no matter the cause or the goals of that society. That doesn't mean we should give up on policing. Expecting statistical truths to remain true is not a normative belief.

The reader that Sullivan published is still clinging to the end justifying the means.

As the child of one of the baddies my take is that terror bombing didn't either a) hasten the end of the war--it probably prolonged it but as has been pointed out hindsight is not available to people before they make decisions; and b) it didn't cause some revenge cycle of hatred. My father was strafed by P51 Mustangs on his way to school when the fight was on and was a happy jeep rider/translator/baseball noob once the Americans had taken over.

We have rhetorically elevated information extraction techniques that--while clearly quite unpleasant--don't do permanent damage to their subjects, to the level of "torture".

Kids: can you spot all five errors in the above?


There's a simple solution to all this--total, unconditional surrender to an aggressor.

We are the aggressor. Not only is what you wrote a textbook false dichotomy (torture or surrender, nothing in between) but it doesn't even make sense. You want us to surrender to ourselves?

Andrew Sullivan's "reader" is probably right about the aims of the bombing in Europe, but there is in fact a great deal of argument about whether or not those aims were met. German industrial production, for instance, actually increased until the very end of the bombing. On the other side, the Nazi aim of breaking Britain's spirit through indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians clearly had the reverse effect, or very nearly. something similar is the case with torture. According to those who ought to know, it doesn't work. (As I understand it, no one on the Allied side expected that the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg would produce the kind of fire storm that actually occurred. At the same time, the bombing of Dresden was, by the time it was done, virtually pointless.)

We have rhetorically elevated information extraction techniques that--while clearly quite unpleasant--don't do permanent damage to their subjects, to the level of "torture".

We have 'elevated' nothing to torture. The Bush Administration has tried with all its PR might to lower those techniques that were formerly considered torture to something 'lite'. Just nasty enough to satisfy the bloodlust of some, not nasty enough to trigger the U.S.'s historic condemnation of them.

The U.S. jailed and executed people in the past for performing what you euphamistically describe as "information extraction techniques". Even the Gestapo held them in reserve. It's you and yours trying to redefine what was previously unquestioned.

Regardless, you missed Megan's point, both today's and yesterday's.

Shocking, the depths of depravity and barbarity to which Democratic Presidents can descend. All the more reason to keep these Democratic warmongers and war criminals out of office.

/just putting this in the context in which it would be put if a Republican had been in charge when this happened.

And that's not even to mention the concentration camps. Democrats hate yellow people.

Thoroughly disgusting and utterly dispicable that we humans can so easily do these things to each other. It's not vomitting I feel like doing, but crying.

However... and it certainly doesn't excuse it so maybe I should just end here, but, the horrific acts committed by the Nazis upon the Jews and many other groups were more digusting, right down to its methodical nature.

Can a case be made that vile and disgusting groups (Nazis) require vile and disgusting means of diposing them? I think so. It's a terrible contradiction of humanity.

But I'm not going to second guess the people who fought, bled, and died on our behalf. I can condemn war, condemn slaugther and killing, but that doesn't mean when the time comes I won't support those who must do it (or do so myself if needs be). I'll leave the morality plays to the relativists. We were the right side in that war, inspite of committing terrible acts in the process.

Look: In a historical period where collectivist thought still dominated, it was roughly and generally understood that such actions as the firebombing would rightfully "punish" those who stood behind the bad guys by virtue of the fact that they appeared not to resist. I think Mr. Hecht, in this sense, is behind the times and misses the point.

The point is that we have consistently improved in our war-fighting capabilities that such acts of collective punishment are no longer acceptable by modern standards. There are still, however, those who do believe in the old standards, in particular the terrorist organizations who appear to believe that they can torture (by medieval standards) anyone who is presumed to align with America, the West, or modern nations the West does not act against.

As to the Dresden stories: Yes, they are nightmarishly horrifying. But you can be certain that neither the German National Socialist government nor the Allied invaders pressed the point at home. In fact, the Germans were quick to tightly control such tales because it might have the effect of inducing fear amongst the populace. Strangely, it was only under American occupation that these stories were permitted to be told. Consider the contrast and the root causes.

Next: Abu Gharib would have had to be immeasurably worse to compete with such WWII atrocities! Yet the despot we removed in Iraq looked up to such brutality, especially as performed by the Russian communists and German National Socialists, as wonderful examples of how to suppress his own people! And we're somehow the comparative "bad guys?"

The reason our performance has improved historically is that we do not accept the premise that "war crimes" are inevitable and nothing can be done to prevent vengeful atrocities. Nope, sorry, but despite the Utopian visions you seem to use as a yardstick, there is a significant improvement in our attempts to reduce the likelihood of atrocities and war crimes over time. If there's anything that is inevitable, it is war itself, not the United States perpetrating war crimes -- no matter how many despots and other foreign governments like attempting to embarrass or shame the US into submission for their own domestic political gain.

Megan,
Sure, it's heartrending. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Read up on what happened in Russia from 1940-1945. Read it ALL. Then tell me if that horrifying tale of the deaths of German civilians bothers you all that much.
Study what Japan did in China and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. All of it (Nanking, etc.). Look at the pictures, and read the stories. The tales of civilians caught in the Tokyo firestorm don't seem so tragic, afterwards.
Hell, just watch Saving Private Ryan and see if you're so sympathetic.
The sad truth is that the ability to target civilians is the best way to prevent aggressive war. Ask yourself: Why was the first half of the 20th century the greatest bloodbath in the history of humankind, but the second half relatively peaceful, with no wars between the great powers?
When England was waging war in India a century or so ago, did the good people of London have anything to fear? Was this a good thing or a bad thing?

Interestingly, there has been no resurgence of German military adventurism since the unfortunate events you deplore. Coincidence?

The argument to which Megan is responding is that torture is worse than firebombing because the latter serves a larger strategic purpose. She observes that, from the victim's perspective, firebombing is easily as horrific as torture. She could also have observed that torture can be as justified as firebombing if you accept an 'ends justify the means' position, which is basically what 'Bomber' Harris did.

If you think Megan is equating strategic bombing with torture, it's only for the purpose of inverting a hierarchy of evil that most of you would be even more offended by.

If there's anything that is inevitable, it is war itself, not the United States perpetrating war crimes -- no matter how many despots and other foreign governments like attempting to embarrass or shame the US into submission for their own domestic political gain.

This was rather my point. I wasn't criticizing FDR, whose decision I think were on the whole sound, but rather pointing out that desperate times etc., and that context is everything. It is somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest to judge, retrospectively, in the cool calm light of reason a decision that had to be taken in the heat of the moment. And that's not even taking into account the avidity with which some promulgate agitprop against the US to advance their agenda.

Interestingly, there has been no resurgence of German military adventurism since the unfortunate events you deplore. Coincidence?

Given the general consensus of historians that the strategic air campaign contributed little, if anything, to Germany's downfall in WWII, would you consider the firebombing of Dresden to be responsible for Germany's current pacifism?

You might consider browsing Jörg Friedrich The Fire and Götz Aly Hitler's Beneficiaries for contrasting accounts of Germans in the war. It was at best pathetic and at worst criminal.

The argument to which Megan is responding is that torture is worse than firebombing because the latter serves a larger strategic purpose. She observes that, from the victim's perspective, firebombing is easily as horrific as torture. She could also have observed that torture can be as justified as firebombing if you accept an 'ends justify the means' position, which is basically what 'Bomber' Harris did.

When the chips are down, we virtually all accept an "ends justify means" position. Few anti-torture absolutists seem to be similarly absolute in their opposition to wartime aerial bombing, which is basically why I think their position is untenable. The position that it's sometimes justifiable to drop bombs that kill and maim innocent civilians (either intentionally or simply knowingly), but never justifiable to submit a known terrorist to 10 minutes of waterboarding to avert a nuclear attack, seems to me not just irrational, but immoral.

Why don't you read more Victor Davis Hanson, perhaps Carnage and Culture?

Sorrow? Anger? How about: we did it because societies are quite capable of doing things that are barbaric without either emotion. Instead, they can make calculated, rational decisions to be barbaric. And they rely on survival instincts, and that instinct says "kill them before they kill me."

Stop feeling the need to ascribe some emotion to the "why would we do this". It's misplaced. Learn more about military history instead.

The position that it's sometimes justifiable to drop bombs that kill and maim innocent civilians (either intentionally or simply knowingly), but never justifiable to submit a known terrorist to 10 minutes of waterboarding to avert a nuclear attack, seems to me not just irrational, but immoral.

It's comments like this that make me despair of any better future world. People who think this way are no different ideologically from those who ran the Spanish Inquisition (and in fact advocate using much the same techniques). If we can rationalize torture, how can we claim to be in any way morally superior to any other culture? How can it be right simply because we do it?

Does subjecting a known terrorist to 10 minutes of waterboarding definitively avert nuclear attacks? Has it ever? There are many experts and much evidence that torture in fact does not work this way. What good does it do to waterboard a terrorist if the bomb goes off anyway? What good does it do to waterboard a terrorist if there is no bomb for him to reveal? I get raked over the coals in another thread for mentioning a movie plot that I felt illustrated an important point, and here I get handed the plot of "24" for the umpteenth time.

To heck with this. Torture is wrong, evil, ineffective, and illegal. I'm going to go watch South Park now.

Let me put it a bit differently, in a way that I think is a bit better. These are community issues, not personal issues. They need to be resolved by the community, and that means a lot of public discussion.

I don't think Hugo's making this about himself. I think that any participant in the community has an obligation not to work outside the community to effect change.

Damn crossposting. Please ignore my last.

Does subjecting a known terrorist to 10 minutes of waterboarding definitively avert nuclear attacks? Has it ever?

I don't know. Just as you don't know that a wartime bombing raid that kills innocent civilians will achieve its military objective, or that that military objective is even necessary to victory. There is no certainty. Do you therefore oppose all wartime bombing, and all other wartime acts that harm civilians?

There are many experts and much evidence that torture in fact does not work this way.

If all else fails, and the bomb is ticking, we will, and we sometimes should, torture even if the chances of extracting the necessary information are judged to be low. If we knew that torture is never successful at extracting the information needed to avert a catastrophe, we would have strong reason to avoid it under all circumstances. But we don't know that.

What good does it do to waterboard a terrorist if the bomb goes off anyway? What good does it do to waterboard a terrorist if there is no bomb for him to reveal?

None. What good does it do to drop civilian-killing bombs on what you believe to be an enemy munitions factory but is in fact a plant that makes infant formula? The possibility that your action will not produce the benefit you hope for, or even any benefit at all, is obviously not limited to torture scenarios.

To heck with this. Torture is wrong, evil, ineffective, and illegal.

If you think you have an argument to justify that position, I'd love to see it.

It's comments like this that make me despair of any better future world.

It's comments like yours that make me despair of a better future world.

Grownups recognize that reality sometimes forces a choice between unpalatable alternatives. You've offered a false dichotomy - what if a terrorist has no bomb to reveal?

But...what if he does? While an interrogator is waiting for the terrorist's ACLU lawyer to show up many thousands could die - you and your family among them.

No one is proposing the sort of stuff the terrorists do routinely, which, not to put too fine a point on it, involves electric drills. We're talking discomfort and psychological stress here, not anatomical damage, or I would join your camp. Make 'em listen to Nancy Pelosi speeches for a few hours. That should do it.

Megs your newfound pacifism is tiresome and idiotic - but hey it's pacifism so it's par for the course.

They were Nazis. You may have heard that they did some unpleasant things to their Ashkenazi neighbors? Got in a tussle with a few Roma. Their Russia neighbors ha some problems too.

Mao and Stalin deserved worse. Truman is definitely the largest criminal of the 20th century, since he allowed Stalin and Mao to continue their genocidal reigns despite having the opportunity to stop them.

We will very likely have to incinerate substantial populations across the Islamic world to eradicate the jihadist threat. But if the options are letting some unwashed 7th century nutter finish hitler's work and then make everyone else convert or usingmost of the nations nuclear arsenal to ensure that no one ever listens to any blood thirsty imam ever again, well then the submarine fleet gets a bit of a workout.

You'll condemn those that save your life - but we will still save your life and your civilization but it is good, true, just, and much more valuable than the abomination of Salafism. I'd much rather that my grandchildren hate me than not have grandchildren at all.

The point of Geneva was that if you violate it, you get the old, no-holds barred rules. Then the left, as always, infiltrated the system and used it to hamstring the US.

Dresden wasn't wrong, Nagasaki wasn't wrong, Tokyo firebombing wasn't wrong. The only problem with torture is that it can give bad information. You need to question effectively and only use torture appropriately - limited circumstances with short time tables and easily verified information. Long-term interrogation is most usefully conducted in a different manner.

We need to mete out hell on all those that support, condone, or allow jihadism. Once people face serious consequences for their uncivilised behavior, they will hopefully act in a civilised manner. But for now all Salafists are barbarians and revel in their barbarity. They will only respond to similar tactics. When the financiers and cheerleaders are worried about the survival of their families, then we will resolve this. This of course means nuking Riydah, Dubai, etc, but it has to happen.

Societies have compacts between them that prevent violence. These are known as treaties or agreements or international conventions. They provide frameworks by which societies can negotiate differences without resorting to violence. Some of these frameworks seek to limit violence

If such frameworks fail, there are no rules.

We call this state "war"

It is often productive to prevent war, but it is foolish to refine war.

The proper answer to which is, who cares? It's wrong.

Consider the results of the firebombing of a city for which the justification was sapping the will of civilians to make war: [...]

Why is it wrong to firebomb "innocent" civilians, but ok to use the same methods against enemy troops? Those enemy troops could not be killing our sons and daughters without the support of their side's civilian population. They manufacture the arms, supply food, provide recruits, and give them encouragement. They are part of the war effort, and therefore are legitimate targets.

Doesn't seem to be much to see here to argue about.
The "They were Nazis" pov seems to be the consensus. This is fine but lets stop talking about "morality" if that's the case. To the victors go the spoils.

I don’t see that it relevant that civilians, including women and children, died painful deaths. Outside the context or war, the emotional revulsion we feel for the murder of a woman or a child may exceed the disgust we feel for the murder of a man, but we hold their lives to be equally valuable under the law. (As justice is no longer blindfolded, we may now punish such a man more sternly for one murder than the other. We may stress the degree of callousness involved, rather than the act itself, which is a damn shame. I don’t care how big of a scrub you are, I care about what you did.) In war, as with crime, the life a woman or child is theoretically of equivalent value to the life of a man who is a soldier. The issue is not the type of people being killed, but whether people are being killed unnecessarily.

The mass butchery of a civilian population may advance the interests of a state by thoroughly demoralizing its enemy (including their soldiers) and degrading the enemy’s capacity to effectively wage war. However, the enemy can do the same in return. While you can argue that one state will always have more to gain than the other state by targeting civilians, in general one supposes that the more powerful state will win out, whether it is at a disadvantage in such a terror campaign or not. In other words, civilians are an important factor in a conflict, but of a tertiary importance. However, the civilian casualties of such a war might be the war’s worst consequence.

Hence, amongst civilized peoples, there is the formal and tacit agreement that the contest of strength will largely be determined by the best indicator of strength, the militaries, and that the civilians will largely be excluded from this contest.

It’s not wrong to kill women and children and other civilians because they are women and children, it’s wrong because their involvement in a conflict is unlikely to cause a different outcome to the war and their deaths are consequently needless. A needless death is an inherently immoral one. This is likely why we Feel particular outrage at the murder of a child or woman, as they deaths are more likely to be needless. Dangerous men are all too common. How often is killing a kid a necessity? ‘I had no choice your honor, the little guy came at me with an axe…’

This is why collateral damage is considered morally acceptable and terrorism is not. Though civilian deaths result in both cases, the deaths are the consequences of very different strategies with divergent outcomes. Wars have the capacity to resolve conflicts decisively. A terrorist campaign of blowing up Jews is less likely to lead to a useful outcome.


As a two sided campaign against the civilian populations can be excised from a war by common consent, without dramatically affecting the strategic interest of either state, there is a moral imperative that it should be excised. But assuming that one state refuses to participate in this civil armistice, it is unclear to me that it might not be strategically damaging, if not suicidal in some conflicts, not to respond in kind. Failing to do so may effectively grant the enemy the means of prevailing in the conflict, and enforcing upon the conquered, barbarisms of the kind employed by an enemy that practices complete indifference to human decency during the course of a war.

It is immoral for me to kill any man I meet in the street with a gun. It ceases to be immoral for me to so waste a life, if he tries to kill me first. I whole heartedly agree that targeting civilians in a war is generally unnecessary and, therefore, utterly barbaric and worthy of the label war crime. Just as I feel that shooting the man who stole from me warrants the label murder. But when one party breaches the laws of civil warfare and engages in such tactics, necessity may then demand that one respond in kind. While it may be unnecessarily and therefore wrong to breach the civil armistice, it may become necessary and therefore justifiable, to comment the same acts in return. The precedent being, it’s wrong for Dave to try to kill me, but it’s not wrong for me to try to kill Dave After he tries to kill me. The corollary being, it’s wrong to target civilians when it is unnecessary to target them, and right to do so when it becomes necessary.


Thus, the immorality of civilian warfare hinges upon a relatively low cost to states to eschew the practice. The nuclear attacks upon Japan killed hundreds of thousands, but is estimated to have saved the lives of millions of Japanese who would have died in the conventional invasion, the greater part or those civilians. This says nothing of the million plus Americans who were to have died in the attacks. Therefore, I cannot, for example, be persuaded to view attacks necessary to save millions of lives on both sides immoral, no matter how many little girls and boys and women died, and no matter how horribly they died. It was not a war crime because it was necessary.

The Blitz may have been a war crime, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Dresden bombing wasn’t a necessary response to that war crime, if it offset the advantage the Germans gained through the Blitz. The morality hinges upon the strategic value of the civilian lives in question, not upon the nature of those lives. Because the nature of women and children tends to minimize their strategic importance, we conflate the immorality of killing the strategically unimportant, with the immorality of killing civilians specifically. But if a balanced war’s outcome were to be decided or heavily influence by such a campaign, the weak become very important indeed.


Or so sayeth Quoth.
Several times.

"Why is it wrong to firebomb "innocent" civilians, but ok to use the same methods against enemy troops? Those enemy troops could not be killing our sons and daughters without the support of their side's civilian population. They manufacture the arms, supply food, provide recruits, and give them encouragement. They are part of the war effort, and therefore are legitimate targets."

Osama bin Laden thoroughly approves of your "moral" "logic". The US could not have been bombing Iraq and occupying Saudi Arabia without the support of American taxes coming frm the bankers in the WTC. They were legitimate targets!

Of course I make this argument just to show the moral depravity of arguments like those put forward by Anon Y. Mous. Or a moral imbecile like Quoth:

"The precedent being, it’s wrong for Dave to try to kill me, but it’s not wrong for me to try to kill Dave After he tries to kill me. The corollary being, it’s wrong to target civilians when it is unnecessary to target them, and right to do so when it becomes necessary."

Quoth, by this logic, if you kill one of my children, the State should kill one of yours! The ONLY reason anyone invents stupid qrguments like this is that accepting the war crimes committed by the US is too hard on their self-image.

Or there's rhinoman:
"Sure, it's heartrending. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Read up on what happened in Russia from 1940-1945. Read it ALL. Then tell me if that horrifying tale of the deaths of German civilians bothers you all that much.
"Study what Japan did in China and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. All of it (Nanking, etc.). Look at the pictures, and read the stories. The tales of civilians caught in the Tokyo firestorm don't seem so tragic, afterwards."

What in the world are you talking about? Somehow, the fact that A commits a barbarity against B justifies C committing one against D?! Are you even paying any attention to what you are saying? Or are you unaware that none of the infants killed at Hiroshima took part in the rape of Nanking?

"Why don't you read more Victor Davis Hanson?"

Because he's a bad historian whose basic thesis has been shown to be rubbish by the likes of Garrett Fagan? That might be one reason not to read more of him.

Let's say you could fight a war very humanely. We're talking super-surgically, with HRW liaison and a lawyer attached to every squad. Any enemy caught alive would have to proven to be an enemy, i.e. chain of evidence, etc. by a neutral party. Your army would be willing to lose man after man attacking a fortified house that might have civilians in it rather than risk an airstrike. Whatever, you get the drift.

Now, say I am the other side. I know that if I decide to make war on you, my losses among my women and children will be very low. I only risk my own men and even then, it won't be so bad. I have a sort of advantage in that I can kick sand and bite while you won't.

That's a bit of a moral hazard in some ways.

Also, see: don't do the crime if you can't do the time and nuclear weapons (MAD.)

p.s. The above is a thought experiment only.

It's comments like this that make me despair of any better future world. People who think this way are no different ideologically from those who ran the Spanish Inquisition

Oh come on rob, you can do better than this. First of all, he starts by condemning people who:
1. believe it justifiable to bomb innocent civilians
AND
2. don't believe it justifiable to torture a (terrorist/enemy combatant/bad guy/rogue freedom fighter/other side guerrilla/your choice of term here)

And you go on to say "you are no different ideologically from those who ran the Spanish Inquisition"

Does that mean you believe the first point? I don't even support torture, nor does Megan, as she's pointed out several times, but I do at least understand this guy's point of confusion:
We're saying it's okay to do immoral and inhumane things to innocent people, if it meets our strategic objectives, but it's not okay to do immoral or inhumane things to those who were actively attacking us (or attacking innocent civilians). Do you really feel that way?

Without actually approving of torture myself, I at least understand Mixner's feeling that the two beliefs should be incompatible. It seems defensible to say "we shouldn't do immoral and inhumane things to people", but it doesn't really seem defensible to say we should give better treatment to enemies than to civilians.

Megan, I think you're unfairly comparing a day without war to a day with some act in an existing war that you find unacceptable. That's not really fair. You should compare the results of a war with the unacceptable act to those of that same war without the unacceptable act. Perhaps in the Dresden case you should print the stories from the Nazi concentration camps to see if saving a few extra days/weeks of that makes this seem more acceptable?

The problem is that war is hell. It's all bad. But printing each action without context is a lot like Al Jazeera's coverage of the Israeli/Palestine conflict - without listing the Palestinian's actions, of course Israel looks like they're 100% to blame.

"German industrial production, for instance, actually increased until the very end of the bombing."

Take a look at the increase in US production versus German production to see the effects of the bombing. German production either stood at the same levels or increased slightly, while US production increased exponentially. Not allowing the Germans to put their superior weapons/tanks out into the field in larger numbers was a key to winning the war.

Secondly, we can't compare WWII to the current conflict. WWII killed millions of people (what 30-40 million) along with 200,000 American soldiers. The current war is no where near the scale of WWII.

Oh, where to start?

First, "we": the firestorms were caused by Bomber Command's night raid, not by the smaller American raids that were directed at the rail yards beforehand. This is an important distinction: throughout the war, the US Air Force (at least in the ETO) refused to embrace the "area bombing" strategy of the RAF. A lot of American pilots died so that we could at least try to kill fewer civilians.

Setting that aside, the purpose of this raid was to end the war: it wasn't simple, gratuitous murder. In that respect, it differs from the concentration camps (which were supplied with gas manufactured in Dresden), or atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, which probably resulted in more deaths than the bombing of Hiroshima. It was cruel, obscene, and awful: but it was directed toward the ending of something that was crueler and infinitely worse.

The real answer to the question "who is responsible for this" has to be "the Germans themselves." They were the ones who brought on the war, they were the ones who willed its most vicious aspects, and they were the ones who coarsened and brutalized their opponents. If they want to know why they suffered so terribly, they have an answer ready at hand: it was because of the Holocaust, because of the destruction of Czechoslovakia and Poland, because of the attempted genocide of the Russians, and because of the viciousness of the occupation of Western Europe. Lots of wars have been fought (before and since) that did not descend to the level that one reached - but it was the nature of the war they chose to fight that made the retribution they suffered so awful.

Geoff,

Without actually approving of torture myself, I at least understand Mixner's feeling that the two beliefs should be incompatible.

Not "should be," but "are." They ARE incompatible. Sam Harris, among others, has made this point at length.

You say I'm confused, but I don't see any description of this alleged confusion in your post. You also say you "don't support torture" (by which I assume you mean you believe torture is never justifiable). What about bombing that kills civilians? Do you also believe that is never justifiable? I'm not talking here only about bombing that intentionally targets civilians, but also bombing that has the known effect of killing civilians, even if their deaths are not intended. An example might be the bombing of an enemy munitions factory that has civilian workers, or that is located in a civilian residential neighborhood. If you do not believe that such attacks are never justifiable, why do believe that torture is never justifiable? What, in your opinion, are the relevant differences between torture and civilian bombing that makes the latter sometimes justifiable, but the former never justifiable?

Indeed. A much better strategy for reducing German manufacturing capacity would have been to establish a lend-lease program with the USA of 2004 and import hundreds of thousands of Joint Direct Attack Munitions across the 60-year span of history.

The firebombing of Dresden was ghastly. But in 1944, it took 108 B-17s dropping 648 bombs to destroy a point target. An impact within five miles of the intended target was considered a "hit". Given such technological limitations, carpet-bombing cities starts to look attractive since missing your target means hitting something. Particularly given that even "surgical" strikes were more likely to kill civilians than soldiers (there being not terribly many 5-mile wide concentrations of military manpower and materiel.)

Osama bin Laden thoroughly approves of your "moral" "logic". The US could not have been bombing Iraq and occupying Saudi Arabia without the support of American taxes coming frm the bankers in the WTC. They were legitimate targets!

I don't fault bin Laden for attacking soft targets; I fault him for attacking my country. The correct response to that declaration of war is to take the fight to him and all who support him.

That casualty estimate for WWII suggests that ~ 20 000 people were killed per day. If the average RAF raid was expected to kill four thousand people and shorten the war by six hours, it would be expected to save more lives than it took. Something to bear in mind.

And I have never quite understood the argument that the moral value of a teenagers life drops from near-infinite to zero the moment he receives his draft notice.

Switching to the torture “debate”, I don’t think it matters whether you can construct a theoretical argument claiming it is moral under some circumstances. What is needed is a policy that can be explained to, and enforced on, the CIA, Army Intelligence etc.

Switching to the torture “debate”, I don’t think it matters whether you can construct a theoretical argument claiming it is moral under some circumstances. What is needed is a policy that can be explained to, and enforced on, the CIA, Army Intelligence etc.

What policy do you propose?

Whatever our policy on torture, the question of whether torture is ever ethical remains. Obviously, even if we had a policy banning all torture under all circumstances with no exceptions, that wouldn't mean torture was always wrong. And even a no-exceptions legal ban on torture would never be truly enforceable. There are mechanisms and procedures that can be used to render any law impotent in particular cases (prosecutorial discretion, the necessity defense, jury nullification, presidential pardon).

Dear Megan,

I'm the guy who wrote the comment that Andrew Sullivan posted. I still think she's wrong.

"One could as easily argue that the purpose of torture is to satisfy our strategic objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Yeah you could argue that, but it would be a purely hypothetical argument, one not grounded in any facts. There's no evidence that torture has yielded any actionable intelligence that serves strategic objectives. On the contrary, we got some of the intelligence that justified the war in Iraq by torturing a guy until he started making up the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection. So if torture were done for strategic purposes, we wouldn't have ever done it, because we know it doesn't work. I think it's difficult to make the argument that the purpose of torture is strategic when it has, in fact, served no strategic objectives.

Torture makes much more sense as part of a general effort to dehumanize an enemy. This torture actually accomplishes. I'm not talking about torture as isolated incidents in the field. I'm talking about torture as policy, as a regime--the kind of torture that goes on at our behest in places like Egypt; or that our soldiers were instructed to practice at Abu Graib. The whole project of legitimizing torture--making soldiers and civilians more comfortable with the idea of torture--is about rewriting the moral landscape. It's about taking the gloves off and letting giving our desire for vengeance free reign. It's "24" writ large.

Horror stories from Dresden doesn't change the fact that its primary purpose was strategic. And as a side point, you've missed an important strategic objective of Dresden, Megan: to show the gigantic Russian army charging into Europe the Allies' destructive capability. Before we had decided to use the atomic bomb, we needed to show what conventional allied air power could accomplish. The scorched earth of Dresden would have made quite an impression.

I am not arguing that Dresden was justified. I think it wasn't. I'm saying it was done for the purpose of military strategy. It was not done for the purpose of changing the way the military and society thinks about its enemies. This is the aim and accomplishment of the torture regime.

I should point out that the "justification" for bombing Dresden specifically was not "to sap their will for war". That was one of the goals of the entire strategic bombing campaign, and quite reasonably; morale is staggeringly important.

However, Dresden was a significant military target and of serious strategic importance in itself; see, for instance, here. (Items 5-11, 17, 19, and 24 especially - and 31 and 32 about misinformation and propaganda use of the bombings by the Germans), and attacked no more severely or in more deadly a fashion than other large German cities (cf 28, 29 above), which, oddly, have not become sources of outcry or wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The attack was not willful murder of a mass of civilians for no military purpose beyond inculcating fear and despair; it was a strategic attack on a vital enemy crossroads and significant - and largely untouched - production nexus. In other words, exactly a proper target for attack.

Sorry, but we most definitely do not know that "torture doesn't work," if by that you mean that torture never produces true intelligence that can be used to avert an attack or for some other beneficial purpose. Torture may be an unreliable method of interrogation, but that doesn't mean it never "works" at all. If other methods of interrogation have been tried and failed, and if there is credible evidence that a prisoner has information that could be used to prevent an imminent attack, then torture may be justified.

I also think the argument that torture is always wrong because it is "dehumanizing" makes little sense. As if blowing up people by aerial bombing is not also dehumanizing.

Mixer: We don't know torture doesn't work in the sense that we don't know that there aren't blue apples somewhere else in the galaxy. Yes, its possible torture could work. I know of no evidence that it does, and there is abundant evidence that it doesn't. See Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" on that.

But my point is that we're not torturing for the intelligence we might gain. We're doing it because we want to feel tough, strong, and to treat our enemies as qualitatively less valuable.

I'm talkign about why we do these kinds of things in war: what our motivation is and what we seek to accomplish. Yes, you could say it's dehumanizing to bomb people, but that's not why we bombed Germany. We didn't bomb them to make them less than people; we bombed them to end the war, prevent them from fighting future wars, and to scare the Russians.

Mixer: We don't know torture doesn't work in the sense that we don't know that there aren't blue apples somewhere else in the galaxy.

No, that is not the sense. Blue apples somewhere else in the galaxy seems very unlikely. Torture sometimes working does not seem very unlikely. In fact, the idea that torture never works is absurd on its face. There is no clear, quantifiable difference between torture and forms of interrogation that involve the infliction of lesser forms of suffering (isolation, sleep deprivation, intimidation, etc.) The very definition of torture in international law (basically, the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain) is so ambiguous and subjective that one man's torture is another man's legitimate interrogation technique.

But my point is that we're not torturing for the intelligence we might gain.

I'm not defending here the use of torture for retribution. I'm defending the view that torture is sometimes ethical as a method of interrogation.

Yes, you could say it's dehumanizing to bomb people, but that's not why we bombed Germany.

And we shouldn't torture for the purpose of dehumanizing either. But we sometimes should torture to obtain information to save lives. The fact that such torture may also have the effect of dehumanizing, even though that is not our purpose, does not mean it is unethical any more than the dehumanizing effects of bombing Germany means that that bombing was unethical.

I know of no evidence that [torture does work] , and there is abundant evidence that it doesn't.

Dahlia Lithwick, writing in Slate, cites the following example of torture working:

There's no doubt that torturing terrorists and their associates for information works. In 1995, Philippine intelligence agents tortured Abdul Hakim Murad, whom they arrested after he blew up his apartment making bombs. The agents threw a chair at Murad's head, broke his ribs, forced water into his mouth, and put cigarettes out on his genitals, but Murad didn't talk until agents masquerading as the Mossad threatened to take him back to Israel for some real questioning. Murad named names. His confession included details of a plot to kill Pope John Paul II, as well as plots to crash 11 U.S. airliners into the ocean and to fly an airplane into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. His co-conspirator Ramzi Yousef was later convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Even if you doubt this particular example, the point is that there is no credible evidence, and no consensus among experts, that "torture never works." It may be unreliable, but that's not the same thing as never working at all.

Blake, as I just wrote back to you, you are achieving your argument by holding Dresden and the current war to different standards.

As far as you are concerned, Dresden is different from waterboarding because the people who authorized it were attempting to achieve valid strategic goals. There's a lot of doubt as to whether it did, in fact, achieve those strategic goals, but as long as there were some, you put it in a separate basket.

In the case of waterboarding, etc., however, you are attempting to say that they are not strategic choices because they never work. I highly doubt that this is true, but leave that aside. I'm pretty sure that most of the intelligence officers who use these tactics do not merely do so because they think it's fun. Nor do I think that the administration authorized it because they think we should beat up Arabs and Afghans even if it does us no good at all.

The emotional logic of violence and response are complicated, and in both cases I think that revenge and dehumanization played a strong role in decisions. But I really don't think you can allege that this is the only motivation behind administration policy. Your hatred of Bush is clouding your judgement. Even very bad presidents do not run around like cartoon villains doing things just because they're bad.

"The very definition of torture in international law (basically, the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain) is so ambiguous and subjective that one man's torture is another man's legitimate interrogation technique."

I don't know, Mixner. Severe mental or physical pain seems pretty unambiguous to me. There's a qualitative difference between a police officer trying to trip up a suspect with confusing questions and good cop/bad cop techniques, and making someone stand for days or sicking a dog on them. One is designed to elicit the truth, the other (torture) is designed to break people so they'll say whatever you want them to say, whether its true or false. There's certainly evidence that the latter techniques gets people to confess to things they've done. But they'll also confess to any number of things they haven't done. Anything to make the pain stop. The point is 1) torture is known to be unreliable, so the idea that we torture for intelligence we gather doesn't make sense and 2) torture is known to dehumanize and literally break people (like Jose Padilla), so its more plausible to suggest that dehumanization precisely why we do it.

I've seen any number of people offer the claim that "torture doesn't work". Unfortunately, this claim runs into serious problems very quickly, and these folks seem reduced to calling names and repeating their claims in a louder voice.

Obtaining a usable definition of "torture" is like pulling teeth. Opponents of waterboarding are more than happy to accuse anyone who practices it of using torture. But I can never get opponents of the practice to do what the Bush administration has tried very hard to do – draw a line so people know what is, and what is not, torture. In my more cynical moods, I suspect these people of wanting to leave the definition vague and subjective, so they can label "torture" anything their ideological opponents do.

I've had this debate with someone who claims to be a professional interrogator. He has often pointed out extreme examples of what is obviously torture, and then drawn an equivalence with any harsh technique that has ever been proposed.

I have only once seen him offer a clear line separating "torture" from "non-torture". He defined torture as "Any physical or mental coercion. Any."

As I pointed out in my open letter to him, this definition leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, it is so silly people have accused me of making it up and attributing it to him in order to discredit his position.

I didn't.

I've linked to his definition in my open letter.

Another problem I have in this debate over torture is the statement, without proof, that it does not "work". That is, it does not obtain useful, actionable information from the person being tortured. (Indeed, since the claim is that torture never yields such information, it would logically follow that any technique that does yield such information is not torture. I can write a logical proof if needed.)

There are cases where "aggressive techniques", or whatever you want to call them, have, in fact, yielded usable, actionable information. This post contains an excerpt from and links to a column describing the case where a German deputy police chief threatened a kidnapping suspect with torture. A few minutes later, he was leading the police to where he had buried the kidnap victim.

Unfortunately, the kidnapped boy had not been buried in a box with a reasonable air supply; he had been stuffed in the ground, wrapped in a plastic sheet. If he had been alive when buried, he was dead within a few minutes. The situation was not quite the "ticking time bomb" the deputy chief had thought at the outset.

Nevertheless, the point remains – the threat of torture caused the suspect to divulge the location of his victim in "a few minutes". In a case where time is critical, what techniques do professional interrogators have that will work as quickly? And do they have proof? Citations in academic journals will do for a start.

I don't know, Mixner. Severe mental or physical pain seems pretty unambiguous to me.

You've got to be kidding. How severe does the pain have to be to qualify as torture? Does a light slap on the face count? A hard slap? A more serious physical assault? How serious? 12 hours of sleep deprivation? 24 hours? 72 hours? A short exposure to freezing temperatures? A longer exposure? How long? A day without food? Two days? Or what? The idea that there is some bright line marking the difference between "non-severe" and "severe" pain seems to me absurd.

The point is 1) torture is known to be unreliable, so the idea that we torture for intelligence we gather doesn't make sense

Another specious argument. Torture does not need to be reliable to sometimes work. If the stakes are high enough (a ticking time bomb) torture may be justified even if its chances of working are judged to be low.

By the way, here is another example of torture working to extract information, from the New York Times last April: 3 Suspects Talk After Iraqi Soldiers Do Dirty Work

As I wrote to Megan, I'm applying the same standard to both torture and wwii bombing: that of intent. The intent of waterboarding and torture is to dehumanize; the intent of Dresden is military strategy. My point in bringing up the fact that torture doesn't generate actionable intelligence was to show that its implausible to suggest than gathering intelligence is the purpose of torture. The fact that the Bush Administration has always made up their own intelligence to justify their actions confirms the point that getting real information cannot be their motivation. I'll grant that intelligence officers aren't necessarly trying dehumanize the enemy, but I'm talking about the purpose of the policy at a higher level.

I do believe that Bush's "Principles" intended to dehumanize the enemy when they authorized torture. Indeed, the OLC's justifications for torture deprived detainees of their civil and human rights, thus tearing down the walls that guard against dehumanization. You can't say this was a means to the end of gathering information because 1) torture doesn't generate intelligence 2) the Bush administration doesn't really want real intelligence anyway. The alternative explanation was that dehumanization was not a mean, but an end.

"The emotional logic of violence and response are complicated, and in both cases I think that revenge and dehumanization played a strong role in decisions. But I really don't think you can allege that this is the only motivation behind administration policy."

I'm not alleging that. I'm saying that dehumanization is an intent of the torture regime. There might be other intents, sure (I can't think of what they are, but why not?). To say that the intent was to dehumanize is not to say that there were no other intents. But my point is that 1) if you intend to dehumanize people, no matter what your other intents are, then you are evil; and 2) whatever the other intents the Bush Admin had, gathering intelligence wasn't really one of them.

So the suggestions that there are some other reasons the Bush Administration authorized torture doesn't really change the fact that dehumanization was an intent, and that that intent renders the action evil.

Mixner: I'm not making an argument about whether torture is right or wrong here. I'm making the limited argument (with which I think you agree) that, if you're doing it to dehumanize people, it's DEFINITELY wrong. I also think that torture almost always is about dehumanizing people, and as such is definitely almost always wrong. I guess I'll remain agnostic on this never-gonna-happen ticking time bomb scenario.

"How severe does the pain have to be to qualify as torture?"

I don't think this question is as impossible to answer as you make it out to be. The army field manual has answers to this right? Like any legal question, you draw the line in the way that makes the most sense, and you list what particular techniques qualify and don't qualify. You have experts come to consensus on which kinds of things would cause severe pain, and which wouldn't. But this is besides the point, because techniques like waterboarding and stress positions--the one's we've used--are widely understood to be torture in law (at least until the OLC started making up the law as it went along).

"Torture does not need to be reliable to sometimes work."

True, but if you know it doesn't work reliably, what good is it? Are you going to follow up every peace of information you get, even when you know most of it's bad? That's a waste of resources. How many times do you think the Iraqis have softened up someone for Americans, and then the info he spouted was completed useless, because he made something up to stop the pain? Better to just do some good old fashioned Law and Order (Brisco generation) interrogation.

I don't think this question is as impossible to answer as you make it out to be. The army field manual has answers to this right?

The army field manual can be written to say whatever we want it to say. What good is an international treaty banning torture if every country is free to define for itself what constitutes torture? Without some independent definition of "severe pain" as that term is used in the treaty, the ban is meaningless.

Like any legal question, you draw the line in the way that makes the most sense, and you list what particular techniques qualify and don't qualify. You have experts come to consensus on which kinds of things would cause severe pain, and which wouldn't.

But there is no consensus on the meaning of "severe" pain. "Severe" is not a medical or biological term with a clear empirical meaning. So "experts" can't resolve the issue. How long may we immerse our prisoner's hand in ice water before the pain becomes "severe" and our treatment of him therefore qualifies as "torture." 5 minutes? So 5 minutes in ice water is torture, and is therefore "dehumanizing" and always and everywhere wrong, whereas 4 minutes and 59 seconds in ice water does not induce "severe" pain, is not torture, and is a legitimate interrogation technique.

But this is besides the point, because techniques like waterboarding and stress positions--the one's we've used--are widely understood to be torture in law (at least until the OLC started making up the law as it went along).

On the contrary, the on-going debate about whether waterboarding properly counts as torture is a good illustration of just how slippery and subjective the concept of torture is.

True, but if you know it doesn't work reliably, what good is it?

Torture doesn't have to be reliable to sometimes work. It doesn't have to be reliable to make the difference between obtaining and not obtaining the information needed to avert a catastrophe.

How many times do you think the Iraqis have softened up someone for Americans, and then the info he spouted was completed useless, because he made something up to stop the pain?

I don't know. I provided the link to the piece about torture in Iraq to rebut your claim that "torture doesn't work."

I'm making the limited argument (with which I think you agree) that, if you're doing it to dehumanize people, it's DEFINITELY wrong. I also think that torture almost always is about dehumanizing people, and as such is definitely almost always wrong.

No, I do not agree. First, as Megan has already pointed out, actions may serve multiple purposes and intents. A prisoner may be tortured both to "dehumanize" him and to extract the information needed to defuse a bomb. And second, I find the whole concept of "dehumanization" vague and ambiguous, like torture. What does it mean to "dehumanize" someone? What does it mean to intend to dehumanize them? People who throw the word around never seem to explain clearly what they mean by it. Indeed, they don't seem to have any clear idea of what they mean by it. It seems to have something to do with taking pleasure in the suffering of another, but is not mere schadenfreude or sadism.

Whatever it's supposed to mean, if a CIA interrogator tortured a prisoner to produce information that was then used to defuse a nuclear bomb planted in downtown Manhattan, I probably wouldn't support his prosecution for some crime, or his public condemnation, on the grounds that he "dehumanized" or intended to dehumanize his victim. I don't think many other people would, either.

I suppose rather like a baseball player, I might say that I am playing this game under protest because the commonality between the Dresden bombings and the topic of 'our torture policy' would seem to accept more innuendo than, well, fact to include for starters that the people affected by the bombing had next to nothing to do with WWII and the 'tortured' had an arguable lieklihood of causing the kind of civilian killings visited us on 9/11 which was more like the Dresden bombing than anything else you have brought up. The laws of war, per my earlier comment, would seem to provide a legalistic 'war crimes' defense for Bomber Harris of Great Britain but that doesn't mean that what was done wasn't criminal in a humanistic sense. The Dresden bombing raises for me a sort of murderous sibling rivalry hypothesis with regard to the relation of Great Britain to Germany. This goes back to WWI and the dipolmatic efforts of Britain to block Germany's rise. As I understand it, Britain was committed to defend Belgium should Germany invade; so war on the western front was Germany's choice by it's activation of the Schlieffen plan. Germany could have 'just' confronted Russia over its mobilization to aid the Serbs who were being attacked by the Austrians for supporting the anarchist killing of the Austrian Grand Duke. British action would seem justified there but, not knowing my history well enough, I wonder if there wasn't something more to the precipitation of conflict between Britain and Germany.

I don't have any principled objection to torturing terrorists. I just don't trust the government to accurately identify who the terrorists are.

The point of criticizing the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden bombings ought not to be to condemn those who bombed the cities, who after all, were not working with the benefit of hindsight and who were in different circumstances than we are in now. It should be to hold us back from using those bombings as an automatic justification for any future such extreme actions we may wish to take (I think the best example of what I am talking about is the poster "Hey").

A good book on this is The Interrogators, which for the first part of the book tells you that torture does not work. Then, towards the end, the author (a military interrogator who worked in Afghanistan) seems to have second thoughts on that supposed axiom. It also seems like the fear of torture works, but for that threat to work somebody has to be doing the torture, i.e. we will send you home to Egypt, etc.

My suggestion would be as follows:

1. The military is not allowed to torture or do torture-lite.
2. The normal CIA is also not allowed to torture or do torture lite, but there would be a special unit that was authorized to do torture-lite, aka water-boarding with some of the more severe stresses. They would have a limited number of cells and manpower which would act as a brake on mass torture of random Kabuli taxi drivers. Say 10 authorized interrogators with as many cells in a facility in country X. The special unit would have an automatic sunset clause unless re-confirmed by Congress.

I am not sure I think that's actually a good idea, but as a compromise where we are military is not allowed to torture, but we keep a very limited option for the KSM types.

I'm no fan of torture, but I think there is more than just a little daylight between the waterboarding of three AQ members and the wholesale incineration of civilians.

Those enemy troops could not be killing our sons and daughters without the support of their side's civilian population. They manufacture the arms, supply food, provide recruits, and give them encouragement. They are part of the war effort, and therefore are legitimate targets.

Well, at least Hamas has had its say.

Oh, I doubt that Hamas really believes that. If the Israelis acted in accordance with that argument and triad to exterminate the population of Palestine, Hamas would probably not argue that this would be a legitimate act of war.

Their view of the legitimacy of an act of war would depend on who was doing it to whom, not on what the act was.