From a reader in England:

Subject: How it works. Jonah It’s pretty simple. If country X doesn’t torture people and its people are captured by country Y which tortures them, country X will have more sympathy from the world, and consequently there will be more pressure on country Y, than if country X does torture people. Incidentally, while I’m glad to note that you think it is perfectly honorable and morally serious to argue that we owe prisoners certain minimal standards of decency I note that you stop short of saying you agree that we owe prisoners certain minimal standards of decency, whether they are deemed legally to benefit from the anti-torture protections of the Geneva conventions or otherwise. Why? What have you got against minimal standards of decency? Minimal standards of decency = liberal nonsense?!

Me: There are a few problems here.

First: even if the above hypothetical were true, it leaves out the fact the United States is country Z, and not country X nor Y.

Second: Again, there is the assumption that there would be significantly more outrage in certain quarters at Iran’s violation of the GC if only America hadn’t allegedly violated it. I do not believe that.

Third: Instead, everyone wants to make this about America and torture, which demonstrates to me that the only salient point about Iran’s villainy here is that it highlights American sinfulness. Kidnap British Marines illegally? Why, that’s just what those Iranians do. Let’s talk about how bad America is.

Four: Re: my statement about minimal standards of decency etc.

I was trying to concede in a fit of intellectual good faith that even those with whom I have disagreed in the past are usually arguing from a position of integrity. Of course, this reader takes it for an admission of sorts that I lack some kind of integrity. So let me put it another way: I think everyone agrees that Americans should behave as honorably as possible, wherever possible. I think all serious people agree that America should have a code of conduct it should be proud of. I think serious and sincere disagreement exists between honorable parties over what that code should be. As closer readers of the Corner may have noticed, I’ve been moving away from positions that opponents called “pro-torture” (which always a bad-faith distortion to begin with). I do not believe that simply because al Qeada hasn’t signed the Geneva Convention we are free to do whatever we want with its captured members.

But I think the anti-torture absolutists want to make as few thoughtful distinctions as possible — no doubt out of a desire to create “bright lines” between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. So, the distinctions between professional soldiers captured as prisoner of war and seized terrorists falls out the window. The distinctions between signatories to the Geneva Conventions and non-signatories? Meaningless. The distinction between techniques short of torture and torture itself? They do not exist. The distinction between the barbaric sport of Abu Ghraib and interrogation of high value terrorists? Moot.

Recall if you will that the first time America was accused of torture in the war on terror — if memory serves — was when photos of captured enemy combatants in restraints and hoods splashed their way on to British tabloids. That wasn’t torture and the eagerness of America’s critics to call it torture demonstrated from the outset, that bright lines were more important than serious discussion, particularly when America fell on the bad side of them.