When they speak of "the American people", they are correct, because they are talking about those who endorse the Republican propaganda.  For them, those are the only American people.  Those of us who do not subscribe to the Republican propaganda are not Americans.

I just wanted to add that if we are in fact not torturing people, then what is to stop us from banning it?

I heard this argument somewhere: although we don't torture people, we can't outlaw it, because then the evil doers would know they don't have anything to worry about. Or in other words, we wouldn't torture anybody (of course), but it's good if people know that we just might.

"To be honest I can understand why some people support torture."
To be honest, I can't.

"the American people are wise enough to understand that we can't win the war on terror without good intelligence, and that there won't be good intelligence without aggressive interrogations...."

    Whoever wrote the above for the Wall Street Journal needs to be told to find a new job.  Ok, the American people would also like some good intelligence about going to war wiith Iraq. By whom, when and why was the decision made?  So maybe we should round up all The White House gang, some from the Pentagon, some who have left government and many others and without any charges use torture for some agressive interrogations to find out what really happened.

    Is that what the American people want?  Is that what should happen to any American military person or civilian who is captured by terrorists or a foreigh government?   

    The American people are wise enough to recognize lying idiots. 

What about the prisoners who have died unnatural deaths while in US custody?  What caused the deaths?  Was it "enhanced techniques", "aggressive interrogations"?

What about the article in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer on the death of Manadel al-Jamadi?

Here's what I wrote in the comments at Adventus:

...I did not really want to read this article, but I felt I must, to bear witness - just the reason I went to see "Schindler's List".

That human beings can treat other human beings in the manner that this man was treated is unimaginable to me. ProfWombat, I have read of the Milgram experiment, but it's still hard for me to believe.

Here's Cheney on ,Meet the Press:

"In 2001, Vice-President Dick Cheney, in an interview on Meet the Press, said that the government might have to go to 'the dark side' in handling terrorist suspects, adding, 'It's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal.' "

We should not be surprised that today he is still standing up for torture.

Here's what the article had to say about the prisoner when others saw him after he was dead:

"Two years ago, at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, an Iraqi prisoner in [CIA officer Mark] Swanner's custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died during an interrogation. His head had been covered with a plastic bag, and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he asphyxiated."

The Navy Seals, who first took Manadel al-Jamadi into custody and roughed him up some, were put on trial and exonerated because the injuries sustained by the prisoner were not serious enough. He did walk into Abu Ghraib on his own, and was able to speak normally at that time.

Swanner's part of the story is still "under investigation" or you could say "on ice".

I'd add their "rogue soldiers" claim to your list.  The right wing, the people who are so quick to accuse war dissenters of not supporting the troops are rather quick themselves, when circumstances warrant, to lay the blame for torture and probably or any innapropriate military action, right on our soldiers, as individuals.  Meanwhile, it seems, most of the people who are either against the war or who have questions about how it's being conducted, the people who are accused of some sort of mild treason and of not supporting the troops, seem to be far more willing to give the actual soldiers a pass and to want to know whether or not their actions stem from the orders they've received.

This was one of the problems all during the Cold War there were those who said we were fighting and evil enemy and we must fight them with all means at our disposal.  What was the point of fighting the Soviet Union if we were to become just like them?

It is the same now, perhaps even more serious. We are faced with people who hate our way of life.  If we descend to their level we might as well quit and just do what they want.  It will be cheaper and less deadly.  Our standard should never be our enemies but our values.

To re-enforce destor's point one of the more shameful aspects of our time is the total denial of responsibility.  I suppose given that we have a Commander-in-Chief and a Secretary of Defense who deny their responsiblity that uniformed officers do so too but dumping everything on a few soldiers when we all know better is a disgrace.

Or in other words, we wouldn't torture anybody (of course), but it's good if people know that we just might.

This is a bogus argument even on purely pragmatic grounds. I can imagine being taken into an interrogation room by the CIA: somehow I would not derive much comfort from knowing that torture, in theory, is illegal. In fact, the opposite is true. If my interrogator were to say, "I know torture is illegal, but I don't really care," then who knows how far things might be taken? He's decided to step over a line, and how far he goes is up to him. It's scary for the prisoner no matter what.

You said: "We are faced with people who hate our way of life."

Were you talking about terrorists or Neo-Cons? 

how far we have fallen... when we can rationalize torture, we are no better than the drug addict rationalizing stealing to support his habit... if, to keep ourselves "safe," we must adopt brutality and inhumanity, what is it exactly that we are trying to preserve...? it certainly can't be the "shining city on the hill..."

Actually, that is a fascinating point.  You are right about that specific instance, but it is really just part of a broader trend:

(1) Rummy sends the troops in without proper body armour.  It takes Democrats forcing the issue to get any change.

(2) Rummy doesn't send enough troops in to win the peace.  Many Democrats complain, but nothing happens.

(3) The administration has tried to cut soilder benefits and medical treatment for the wounded.

(4) The administration claims that the Geneva convention does not apply, putting our soilders at risk of torture (although to be honest, I don't think that matters much in this case - the terrorists in Iraq are so cruel in the first place that they don't need our permission to violate Geneva).

Even with all of these examples, the military overwhelming supports Bush.  I think it is very similar to the argument made in What's the Matter With Kansas - people want to feel morally superior, and they will be willing to sacrafice quite in order to get that feeling.  Kansasians (or whatever they are called) are willing to sacrafice their economic well-being in order to prove that they are better than the elite liberals on the coasts, and soilders are willing to sacrafice their lives in order to prove that they are better than the cowardly liberals on the coasts.

     Much of what the Bush Administration is doing is to make explicit those things which were always done as policy but not admitted to openly.  Repuglican institutions like the WSJ and those of that mentality or worse have always accepted things like eggplant tennis anyone and engineered hypersensitivity (and tapping for the purpose of digging up material to use to hold such things in place from becoming an unduly big stink) all along.  Note that the latter things can NOT be justified to the general public openly as they are merely the casual pastimes of the power elite, and important for suppressing dissent that might effectively discredit them.  That's why the power elite are so intent on not having those sorts of things brought to general EXPLICIT and EFFECTIVE  public attention.

    Instead, to the extent that they have come to public attention, a bar high enough to prevent the liberals from doing anything effective (the bar for that doesn't have to be all THAT high, at least for Americans -- they just make something verboten, make sure that any effort would be frustrated unless on a large scale, punish those who try, and then offer alternative politically correct seeming kudos for those who might be inclined to do something.  This is how the whole lot were silent about the flipflop spin being bogus, how they all remained silent about the Bai Lie being what it was, how they never dared use the information from Fahrenheit 9/11 in any of the national campaigns of ads from the 527s, how the virtual complete media lockdown (including much of the blogosphere) was accomplished during Votergate 2004.  Liberals on the whole only care about respectability and their own personal golden parachutes anyway, so for that reason, only a limited range of people in the US need to be suppressed. 

In short, there remains a whole range of things that torture and the likes, aboveground and underground, are used for in the US.  The WSJ and those of its ilk are very well aware of these and, even if not always enthusiastic, are little bothered by these unless they get in the way of making money.  Sometimes they will posture about concern, but that is only to keep up appearances, like the McCain resolution.  No one should be fooled by any of it.

And let us remember JUST AS FROM THE McCARTHY ERA THERE IS NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE SPY CAUGHT BY THE ENTIRE RANGE OF INQUESTS, HUACS, AND DENIALS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (those spies that were caught were by the usual means, without anything impacting civil liberties) SO TOO THERE HAS YET TO BE A SINGLE ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF A TERRORIST OR ACCOMPLICE CAUGHT OR TERRORIST ACT PREVENTED BY MEANS OF TORTURE.  The notion of the emergency uses of these things are just pretexts for repression, and for laundering repression.  The Wall St Journal and those on Wall St who are to their right, and others advocating torture all know this.  They have always only been interested in (1) enforcing the rule in the US in practice by an unaccountable political oligarchy and (2) currying favor with that oligarchy.

one of the comments on the wsj op-ed, by one mr. gauthier, keenly points out that any leader worth his snuff would outwardly condemn the concept of torture, and as a matter of policy, permit interrogation by all means necessary where a good-faith basis exists that a detainee has information that would prevent an impending mass casualty event.  there seems to be a similar standard in effect for police and correction officers domestically (i.e., situations where it is permissible to 'shoot to kill'). 

it does bear noting that the price for such a policy is reciprocation, meaning american detainees (whether technically covered by the geneva convention or not) will likely be subject to more aggressive interrogation techniques, and worse detention conditions.  also, it may mean that american torturers who lack the required good faith basis will go unpunished.   

The neo-cons like our way of life so much that they are willing to start wars with other countries in order to export it.

WRONG!!! They are only willing to start wars to make more money, from oil, from reconstruction, from military spending, from outright flim flammery, from any scam they can dream up. I don't know about you, but that isn't my way of life.

it does bear noting that the price for such a policy is reciprocation, meaning american detainees (whether technically covered by the geneva convention or not) will likely be subject to more aggressive interrogation techniques, and worse detention conditions.

The real price we are paying is that we have lost our moral compass. We now are actually disagreeing amongst ourselves over whether or not to torture people just because we want them to tell us something. We used to be a moral nation (with some very serious flaws, of course), but now we cannot possibly claim that. We used to be a Christian nation, but it would be ludicrous to claim that today. The world used to respect and wish to emulate us. Not now. We are paying the price for voting Bush into office, knowing his immorality, and we are paying a premium price for Bush's torture policy.

Great point here, Cloudy, where you say: "Much of what the Bush Administration is doing is to make explicit those things which were always done as policy but not admitted to openly."

A whole lot of what we've done in Iraq is stuff that we've done before but... explicitly, for the first time.  We used to have to wait decades for documents to be declassified, but now, we don't.  Though, I'll be fascinated to see what's declassified decades from now.  A good amount of what we already know is just the unapologetic practice of what we've only barely admitted before. 

Great point.  You have to put yourself in the situation in order to deal with this issue.  You're in an interrogation room, held by the US military and operated either by the US military or our intelligence agencies or both and when you leave the interrogation room, you're headed right back into the custody of the people asking you the questions.  It's one of those situations where "I know my rights!" doesn't count for much.