The new Army manual

I don’t know an incredible amount about the negotiations going on between Senator McCain, the House, and the Bush Administration except that McCain would like to “prohibit cruel treatment” to prisoners held by the military. I think this is a necessary bit of legislation because in this “war on terror,” the administration has often used wartime thinking to justify actions (Iraq, which was a war, or granting troops the right to shoot terrorists without such things as prosecution) but at the same time, has enjoyed the benefits of the police action mentality (an arrest is an assumption of guilt, prisoners are not called “prisoners of war”).

But at the same time, I’m curious about “humane treatment.” In this NYT article, they talk about a new revision of the Army field manual that would specifically allow or disallow different practices that “walk the line” between torture and interrogation. The article says:

The new manual, the first revision in 13 years, will specifically prohibit practices like stripping prisoners, keeping them in stressful positions for a long time, imposing dietary restrictions, employing police dogs to intimidate prisoners and using sleep deprivation as a tool to get them to talk, Army officials said. In that regard, it imposes new restrictions on what interrogators are allowed to do.

Now maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but interrogation can’t invlove lack of sleep - what’s the point? Interrogation is based on the idea that we can exchange the threat of pain for useful information. It’s a tough line, because I woulnd’t want to be in their shoes as a prisoner. If I was, I’d want a trial and blah blah blah. But at the same time, what’s the point?