The story is a reality based view of torture. It leaves out questions as to whether torture works or promotes false evidence. The implicit line of thinking is that it is bad because it recruits more terrorists and it is based upon fear. Ethics, human dignity, an international law escape mention. It only refers to torture views of Republican candidates, and omits views on the torture topic from Democratic candidates.

Excellent article. This clearly delineates the problem with torture, from a military insider. Everyone who claims we should be mistreating prisoners, or who buys into the idea that those against torture are being 'soft' on terrorists, should read this.

A powerful editorial that carries weight because of the backgrounds of the writers.

Wow! Here are some people who can speak with authority on this topic, and they do just that. The language is stunning and forceful with lines like, "The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality." and "This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of ... More »

A voice of common sense, condemning the crazy rationals of dumb leadership and feeling of entitlement to torture fellow humans, without mentioning rule of law. In the face of the crimes committed to suspects and the veil of secrecy over those crimes(potential prosecution) I am surprised at Hoar and Krulak optimisim.

This article just goes over ground already plowed many times. Same arguments. No evidence is ever presented to support the conclusions of the authors. The ending argument if we do not engage in torture our enemies will not is not supported. A casual review of the situation in Iraq leads one to draw the conclusion that our behavior has no effect. Torture is practiced on a regular basis by the enemy.

It is good journalism because it presents a well articulated logic.

I believe that I have to agree with the writer who argued that there’s a persistent intellectual incoherence in the anti-torture voices. They often can’t decide whether they’re against torture because it doesn’t work or whether they oppose it solely on moral grounds. He argues that "[T]his confusion reflects their own sense of their argument’s weaknesses. If you add up the consensus of informed opinions, torture sometimes gets you some really useful and actionable information, ... More »