1) If you kill combatants in combat, on either side, the rules are and always have been that this is unfortunate but acceptable behavior.

2) If the enemy surrenders or you capture them injured, then you have to go by the rules of behavior laid out in the law as it applies to you (Geneva Convention, etc.). If these rules are broken, the way the Japanese did in WWII, then you have every right to punish those people as war criminals. If your people break these rules you are duty and honor bound to prosecute and punish them, too.

3) If a terrorist is captured or arrested anywhere, then they must be held, tried, and punished in the jurisdiction in which the crime took place, or a neutral site like The Hague.

"one of her roles, when faced with those challenging some element of coverage, is to convey the editorial reasoning behind it. She then has the independent standing to take the side of management, or of those raising the concerns. But I still don't see the point of making this about her."

The reason this is about her is that NPR's ombudsman does not do this. All of her blog posts are defending the role of management. All of them. Now, I know a good ombudsman when I see one--the Boston Globe has had an excellent one for many years. NPR has hired not an ombudsman but a PR spokesperson.

On the other hand, in all of our miscues as a country in our interrogation techniques, I think it safe to say:

We do not decapitate on film and publish

We do not drag the bodies of our dead enemies in the streets, hang them from bridges, and burn them

But I hear we used to make some very stylish necklaces out of ears.

Especially when coupled with other techniques, which you may also erroneously consider to be "benign", such as sleep deprivation and manipulation of the environment.

Far from benign, these are THE most effective - and efficient - techniques for breaking a person down mentally.

Who cares whether she interviews with glenn and his manufactured "controversy".

This is just another attempt by glenn to hijack a better known and more respected media outlet to claw his way up from blog obscurity.

I see where you're coming from, it appears I'm talking about Ms. Shepard's personal views. I really am talking about more about her/NPRs 'professional' opinion. I should have made that clearer.

My tactics would still work on why the 'professional opinion' on NPR would allow them to call rats knawing off your face torture, but will not allow them to call waterboarding torture.

Since torture is now called "enhanced interrogation" by the neo-Orwellians; what are we to call what is going on in Afghanistan? I would call it "war", but others here may not like that stark term and prefer something more soothing. What shall it be called then?

It's a war, Heru-ur. Who here has stated a desire to call it anything else? Has anyone here objected to the use of the word war?

Whatever the term is to be called, "war" or "enhanced obedience enforcement", I will tell you to expect prisoners on both sides of the conflict as that is what happens in these "enhanced force engagements". Will the USA torture prisoners in the field? If you say no, how do you know?

As far as I know, only you have referred to our actions in Afghanistan as "enhanced force engagements". Are you promoting this phrase for a reason? If so, what is that reason?

Will the Taliban use torture? If so, what will our press call it?

They will call it torture.

Your point?

When I was in daily newspapers, the guy who covered city politics once told me, "My job is to ask someone from both sides, write down what they say, and spell their names right."

I left the business not long after. He's still in it, 20 years later.

And could we please agree to stop writing (and saying) "reference" as a verb when we mean "refer to"?

GG, seems to me an unusually high percentage of (presumably) regular readers are failing to pick up on this

...next semester at Georgetown: Karl Rove teaches Civility in a Post-Partisan Age, Bill Kristol lectures on Accountability in Punditry, while David Gregory examines The Role of Intellect in Adversarial Questioning).

which is, in and of itself, sort of funny. But it raises the issue of whether or not you ever want to disabuse [readers] of manifest misinterpretations. Or, maybe, that's part of what makes it comical, (esp. to you)?

Personally, I thought the bizarre email exchange in Update 1 was amusing as hell. I know if I were the recipient of a similar email from you, the same tag line [crickets]will apply.

There is a nice Brazilian saying: “Tá encima do muro” (“He sits on top of the wall”) if they want to criticize somebody for not taking sides. You should get down from there, too.

It might be tempting to take the Pilate position:

If people don't want to give debaters leverage by using "torture" to cover all physical discomfort that is understandable, in my opinion. "Torture" can be as useful as "bad" at times, and this is both the fault of the Bush administration and their critics, who use "torture" for polemic effect. [my highlights,AK]

So, both sides abuse the semantic imprecision for polemic advantage? I’d be untruthful if I’d not affirm this very general statement. However, your method is disingenuous because your apparent even-handedness does not match reality.

Bickering about the meaning of “torture” started, as you would probably readily concede, as an effort by the Bush administration to belittle the stunning departure from both established U.S. law and the accepted reading of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. As an additional confounding factor people threw in the discussion of whether the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists and “terrorists”, as if when they would not, the issue of “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be settled once and for all: Yet CAT still applies, regardless.

Furthermore, the “Radical Left” and “Human Rights talibans” do not refer to “torture” covering “all physical discomfort”, I’d hold we refer to the CAT definition

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [CAT Article 1, my highlights,AK]

Throw in Article 16, that states

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.

That is what we are talking about.

I won’t repeat all the arguments here why the Bush & Cheney reinterpretation of the meaning of these norms was contrary to previous well established reading by U.S. courts and administrations. I’ll just observe that most people argueing that a particular measure does not amount to torture and rather to a harmless fraternity prank, most readily admit: Even if it were torture, hell, if it saves my country, so be it.

While important in itself the whole discussion about the semantics of torture is a sideshow compared to Glenn’s previous post about the indisputable number of deaths in U.S. “custody”.

Thus, your washing your hands in the semantics discussion only disguises an apparent unwillingness to fess up to the hurtful truth. And that’s why you should get down from the wall, and do so quickly!