That mix of "anger, uncertainty and guilt"

Ross posts Thinking About Torture.

There's some discussion at C11.

I think the post is very illuminating.

To answer the "Did we ask for it?" question for myself, I think I can offer a fairly emphatic NO. The special status of "enemy combatant" never made any sense to me. Ever.

We declared a "War on Terror". Bush has pounded the phrase in his speeches. So "prisoners of war" follow naturally.

Prisoners of war have rights. Regardless of what atrocities they've comitted: the Nazis, Japanese, Soviets, and Al Qaeda operatives all have the same rights when captured by the military.

The only alternative is civilian court, in whatever jurisdiction applies. Should the military decide someone is not suited to remaining a prisoner of war but still a criminal, then that person should be turned over to whatever civilian authorities claim jurisdiction.

Torture and torture-lite must never be legal options. We can conceive of a situation in which someone would have reason to decide the ends justify the means and go forward with these things. But when all is said and done, it was still illegal and must be prosecuted. Jury nullification and presidential pardons are the only recourse.

And if Officeholders like a President were involved, they should face impeachment.

No one is above the law.