_these prisoners at Gitmo are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and their treatment, despite not being covered, illustrates the generosity and sunniness of the American character._

Honest. If she has any thoughts on Nagasaki and the American character[*], I’ll be watching.

* In house style, with asterisk: just to say that I in fact do think the American character is fairly sunny, but that Gitmo isn’t evidence of that.

David’s blog; Larry’s blog; this post. Together, these links should stand everyone in good stead…

Don’t worry David you’re not going to fall off the edge of the world! Click on "View archives: June 2005" on the right hand side of the page, scroll down, and we can carry on hammering away at each other right here until the year 3005. Still I await your post with interest. Having said which I’ll be away for most of the next week so you might have to wait for my reaction to it – but I’m sure you can cope with that!

likening interrogation centres to Soviet death camps in which millions perished, is to make your own cause ridiculous

I don’t entirely disagree with that. But I also think that (Gulags or not) facilities like Guantanamo have no place in the free world, least of all in the "land of the free". It’s obscene hypocrisy. Presumably that’s why they site such facilities abroad.

there is a difference between harsh treatment and torture

Absolutely, in the context of the 72 hour limit you propose. But in the context of indefinite detention, I think the difference breaks down. Psychologically damaging levels of suffering are being inflicted in Gitmo, and I’d call that torture. If you made your inmate eat a shredded Koran once, maybe you could pass it off as harsh treatment. But to keep him locked up for years at a stretch eating shredded Korans on a regular basis will reduce him to a gibbering wreck. It’s torture.

the authorities (who are trying to protect the rest of us, remember)

But not at any cost. I think it’s vital to have standards of human rights that we expect all to abide by. To have the leader of the free world publicly flouting them is atrocious. Having the US publicly torturing muslims could easily do far more harm than good, in terms of galvanising (and (to a limited extent) handing the moral high-ground to) anti-American sentiment. Also of course other countries will also be far more likely to take a "if the US doesn’t abide by such high standards why the hell should we" approach in their own dubious "anti-terrorist measures".

Many of the inmates of Gitmo have been there for several years. Any information they do have is likely to be long out of date. Any "ticking bomb" is likely to have gone off or fizzled out long ago.

mainly looking for *information* not convictions

This certainly should be the case, but convictions are good PR…

it is essential that civil liberty groups keep a close eye on the situation

And they do, and then they get called "naive Al Qaeda apologists" for their pains. Any road no-one in the US administration pays the slightest bit of attention to what they say.

it is *almost* impossible to deal with them in the same way as criminals

But criminals (specifically murderers) is exactly what they are! *If* we’re talking about a large-scale terrorist organisation, then you encounter exactly the same problems as you do when dealing with the Mafia. You don’t just want to arrest the couriers, you need to do serious investigative work to get *information* about the bosses, about planned criminal acts. You’ve get to get moles and double-agents in there (not a job I’d volunteer for), and so on. It’s high-level detective work.

*But*, in any case, as John points out with great regularity, the perception of AQ as a huge well-connected, well-armed, international organisation is fear-mongering nonsense. It’s an ideology. If you don’t want people to set bombs off, the best bet is to carefully control the availibility of bombs.

But the main question has to be concentrated on how a democracy deals with actual or potential terrorists. One thing is certain, it is *almost* impossible to deal with them in the same way as criminals, not least because the authorities (who are trying to protect the rest of us, remember) are mainly looking for *information* not convictions. It is a very complex subject, and whilst it is essential that civil liberty groups keep a close eye on the situation, blowing up silly stories and likening interrogation centres to Soviet death camps in which millions perished, is to make your own cause ridiculous

You haven’t experienced basic training for the Parachute Regiment! But later, in what passed for my army career, I was an interrogator, and were I faced with an Islamic fundamentalist whom I wished to break and turn, I would consider (amongst other options) making him eat shredded Koran! You do anything that you think will achieve the desired result of breaking his will to resist – short of physical torture. And before you ask, there is a difference between harsh treatment and torture. I don’t normally ponce for my own site, but if you would like to read more on the subject try:
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2005/02/the_pliers_jenk.html