I was expecting to hear from someone that we should be outraged by the “sexual tactics” at Gitmo. A few folks offered some arguments about how maybe we should be troubled. But not much outrage. One reader argued that we should be bothered by any attempt to separate a man from his God. How would you feel, he asked, if American soldiers were forced to witness a crucifix being desecrated or a Torah being destroyed? I thought this was interesting, but really not very persuasive. I’d gladly settle for that sort of treatment over beheadings.

Another reader did say that as a matter of honor this shouldn’t be done. “Jonah, what about *honor*, what the hell ever happened to honor? Of course it is not f*****g torture. But do you think Nelson Would have done this? Grant? Eisenhower? Russel? Washington?….Gonzales is right, it doesn’t violate any treaty or law, but I expect the military that I pay for-and that I defend the honor of from my communist neighbors every damn day TO ACT WITH HONOR!”

“You’re a conservative,” he lectured, “you should understand that some things are simply matters of honor.”

I find this even more unpersuasive. I’m not a close student of the history of intelligence gathering, but it seems to me that the use of sex to extract information — in all sorts of way wasn’t invented in Gitmo and that nothing of the sort happened under, say, Eisenhower’s command. Prudishness and squeamishness is not automatic cause for concluding that the people involved are dishonorable. Again, I can’t say I love that we’re doing this. But it doesn’t seem like something to bang my fist about either.