Torture? As long as I'm eliciting opinion, Razor, let me drop this on you: I am relatively undisturbed by the pictures and stories out of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Obviously, an investigation is warranted, and any evidence of actual torture or homicide should result in court-martial, etc., etc, etc. End of disclaimer.

So some Iraqi soldiers were paraded naked with female GIs leering at them? I bet it must have been embarrassing for them. Too bad. If I were running that prison, I would demand that such discomfort be routine when attempting to extract information from prisoners. What's next? The international community moaning about the Geneva convention because an interrogator at the prison ostentatiously ate bacon in front of Muslims? Give me a break. Embarrassment and discomfort are routine tools in these situations, for several reasons. First, to obtain intelligence. If a Muslim prisoner is so afraid of unclean, unshrouded women peeking at his johnson, you'd be a fool not to take advantage of that. Second, to break a prisoner's will. Suppose you've got a tough case, a real fanatic Ba'athist, say. He won't talk; he won't cooperate; your stoolies tell you he's rabble-rousing in the exercise yard. If you can destroy his credibility with a little cultural loss of face, it's a lot better than having to rough him up. (And, please, don't tell me you think that prisoner-of-war guards should be Quakers. Sometimes a stitch now will save nine later, if you know what I mean.)

Anyway, I bet some things at Abu Ghraib have crossed the line. In such cases, we should punish those responsible, along with their superiors. But let's stop pretending that our armed forces should run the jails like the Little Sisters of the Poor, that we should play pattycake with thugs and killers, or that most of the accusations amount to much in the first place.

Later: I should note that these same actions, designed to cause embarrassment, humiliation, and discomfort, are certainly gratuitous if the guards did this solely for sport.