Chat transcript with Admiral John D. Hutson, on the interrogation and treatment of terror suspects

I will add this to Tuesdays edition of Today On Gather. Did you see what I added to Mondays edition? I hope it was ok

I honesty belive that we mistreat terrorist in our jails. How bad is it in reality? Are we as cruel as other countries?

Hey Connie - yes, and thank you! Your question is first in queue.

Are these terrorists uniformed and following the protocols of the Geneva Convention?

Admiral Hutson is on the air (Midmorning) now, and addressing questions about waterboarding. He's talking about how "torture for a quest for truth" is ineffective.

Admiral Hutson has joined us now. Please share your questions!

Connie wrote: I honesty belive that we mistreat terrorist in our jails. How bad is it in reality? Are we as cruel as other countries?

Admiral Hutson replied: We are certainly more cruel than some other countries, but we are less cruel I suppose than the worst. And certainly throughout recent history there have been some terrible examples in other countries. Unfortunately we have extraordinary rendition in which we send suspected terrorist to other countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt to do our dirty work for us. Al Libbi "curve ball" gave us the inaccurate information as a result of torture in Egypt that led us to war in Iraq.

Gary wrote: Are these terrorists uniformed and following the protocols of the Geneva Convention?

Admiral Hutson: No. But the Geneva Convention is a requirement on us, since we signed it. And we complied with the GC in Vietnam, when we didn't have to. What is the standard. This is the important point. What wearing uniforms means is they are prisoners of war and have the rights of POWs so when the terrorists aren't wearing uniforms it means they're not POWs, but that doesn't mean we can mistreat them.

There are four criteria to be a POW wear a uniform, bear arms openly, operate within a chain of command, and comply with law of war. If you are a POW it means you can't be prosecuted for your soldierly acts and you are repatriated at cessation of hostilities. That's all the POW issue stands for. Beyond that, we are prohibited from torturing or abusing prisoners by a host of international and domestic laws.

Eric of Saint Paul sent a question: Why are we afraid to admit that we torture for the same reason it has ever been done: to punish, to hurt, to incriminate. No one tortures to learn.

Admiral Hutson replied: I think we're afraid to admit it because it has been condemned by civilised countries - including us - throughout the centuries. For us now to have changed our policy it is embarrassing.

I brought up a question: A caller brought up coercive techniques in interrogation. Can you talk about what those techniques are, and the line between that and torture.

Admiral Hutson: We have tried without success to draw lines between torture at one extreme, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment in the middle, and enhanced, coercive interrogation in the other. What happens is a psychological phenomena called drift. Whereby a otherwise acceptable technique becomes more and more cruel through time to a point hwere it is clearly unacceptable. We need to have very clear limits and what we've done is intentionally made vague what the rules are. So the interrogators drift from acceptable to unacceptable.

"Coercive" in and of itself isn't bad if its not cruel. If I build rapport with the person I"m interrogating and subliminally thereby coerce him into giving me actionable intelligence even with donuts and coffee he's still been coerced.

Lisa from Minneapolis sent a question: Is it true that after WW2, Japanese officers were tried and executed for water-boarding U.S. soldiers?

Admiral Hutson replied: Yes. And in 1903, we prosecuted a US Army Major for waterboarding during the Philipene insurrection and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Judy from Dayton sent a question: why didn't the State Dept, Intelligence Agency, military higher ups stand up and speak before the Iraq war. Maybe all this would be moot [topic]

Admiral Hutson replied: Because before the Irqa war it wasn't an issue. US Policy was to comply with the Geneva convention, until the immediate aftermath after 911... the policy was changed in anticipation of the Iraq War.

JP of Woodbury sent a question:I agree that Torture is Wrong, But I dispute that it is ineffective. If you have some knowledge you can confirm if the suspect has a pattern of lying.

Admiral Hutson replied: The point is that its a false dichotomy. The point is that there are other techniques that are more effective.

If what you really want is actionable intelligence that you can rely on and you have reason to believe it is accurate, then it is clear that there are other techniques that are much more effective. And less detrimental to U.S. reputation and U.S. troops.

And remember too, that we're asking U.S. soldiers to become torturers. We may ask them to give their full measure of devotion for their country... but can we ask them to torture human beings?

Jonpaul of Woodbury sent a question: Considering the Nice Approach to getting information from prisoners, what is to keep them from giving false information?

Admiral Hutson replied: Well, you don't know for sure in all cases. But you have a much higher level of reliability with information that has been gathered through rapport building than through abusive techniques.

But the point is well taken: You don't know for sure until you act on it.

Thanks everyone!