It seems not many here have read a Jacoby column before. The man is a terrific writer and a solid conservative, something very rare in Boston. I read Jacoby’s columns regularly during my seven years in Boston and while I think he’s got it wrong on this issue, it’s beyond beyond inaccurate to confuse him with Leftist pacifists and other moral preeners.

As for torture, I have a new definition and policy. Anything that is regularly done in the training of our soldiers, even our best and elite soldiers, does not constitute torture. Any conditions, discomforts, and harsh interrogation techniques that our best and elite soldiers endure as part of their training is not torture. If enemy combatants and terrorists are unable to endure this treatment, then they prove nothing other than that they are weaker- emotionally, physically, mentally- than our own best fighting men.

Now I am guessing that we do not, as part of our training, stamp on our private’s private parts, break their bones, make them “play” Russian roulette, or otherwise engage in acts of outright brutality and sadism. And I wouldn’t want these things done to anyone in my name. But the brutality is only part of the reason why I object. One reason I object to brutal methods is that I suspect that there are less bloody and equally effective ways to obtain information.

Secondly, I have concern for the emotional and mental well-being of the person who would apply such methods. I have a sense that truly brutal methods like gouging out the eyes, cutting off extremities, etc. damage the moral integrity of person who inflicts this harm on our behalf. I am willing to ask, even require, another human being to do violence on my behalf-be that cop, soldier, or intelligence operative. But I am not so sure I can require them to sell their soul to keep me safe.