"I will hate Americans for the rest of my life."

And who could blame him?

Ex-detainee Mouayad Yasin Hassan, 31, seized in April 2004 as a suspected Sunni Muslim insurgent, said he wasn't allowed to obtain a lawyer or contact his family during 13 months at Abu Ghraib and Bucca, where he was interrogated incessantly. When he asked why he was in prison, he said, the answer was, "We keep you for security reasons."

Another released prisoner, Waleed Abdul Karim, 26, recounted how his guards would wield their absolute authority.

"Tell us about the ones who attack Americans in your neighborhood," he quoted an interrogator as saying, "or I will keep you in prison for another 50 years."

As with others, Karim's confinement may simply have strengthened support for the anti-U.S. resistance. "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life," he said.

We have 14000 "detainees", who are considered neither prisoners of war nor criminal defendents. We've claimed that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them, nor habeas corpus. We don't let them have access to lawyers, or contact their families. It's inconceivable to me that all of these detainees represent a security risk or have important intelligence. In fact, only 1400 detainees have been charged with anything, while over 18000 have been released without ever being charged or told why they were being held.

Who are we? If we're fighting to protect the American way of life, we've already lost. Our fear made sure of that.

What is winning?

The President keeps exhorting us to "stay the course" or "adapt to win" or whatever the latest focus-group tested marketing strategy is in Iraq. I have no idea what he means; I don't know what "winning" would be in his mind. I suppose having a tame client-state in Iraq sending all their oil to us cheaply would qualify, but that seems fairly unlikely.

So, what would "winning" look like to me? If I could suddenly take over, what would I do? Sure, it would be great if there were a genuine liberal democracy in Iraq, and it spread so that the Middle East was just one big happy, peaceful family, but I have no clue how to accomplish that, and neither do the neo-cons. So, what is achievable?

First, I'd recognize that there are limits to American power, no matter how technologically advanced our military is. There are some things that just can't be achieved through violent force, and building a democracy is one of them.

Next, I'd admit that Iraq is already in the middle of civil war, and that it probably would take a whole lot more boots on the ground to change that. Even more important, though, is a clear mission. Right now, I have no idea what the mission is in Iraq, but I'd focus the mission on peacekeeping, as we did in Bosnia. Iraq, like the former Yugoslavia, consists of multiple tribes who were held together only by the brutal force of a dictator. Take the dictator away, and the tribes fly apart; our job should be to contain the violence of the process, not necessarily to dictate what the process should be.

Finally, and this is the least likely of all to ever happen, I'd admit we were wrong. We were wrong to invade a sovereign country preemptively. We were wrong to use torture and to evade the Geneva Conventions. We were wrong.

I still believe that the US can be a major influence in the Middle East, but whether our influence is for peace or more conflict depends on the degree to which we approach the region with some humility. Despite overheated rhetoric about "Islamofascists", the truth is, our country's survival, our way of life, even our safety from terrorists is not really at risk in Iraq. If we could concede that we have made many mistakes in this region since we became a world power, and try not to keep repeating them over and over, maybe we really could bring some stability to what has long been a troubled region.

All of which is about as likely as my getting the opportunity to be in charge....

Preserve, protect, and defend

Maybe this is just a minor semantic nit, but would someone please remind the President that he took an oath not to protect America, not to protect American families, not to protect American citizens? He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Listening to him, he seems confused about this. He seems to think that it's his job to protect America, and that it's okay to toss the Constitution in pursuit of this goal, that in fact, it's his obligation to ignore the Constitution in pursuit of protecting Americans.

Protecting the Constituion is more important than protecting America. You may argue that without America, we have no constitution, but surely, without the Constitution, we have no America.

President Bush is transferring 14 detainees from the secret prisons, where they were hidden and presumably tortured, to Gitmo to be tried. The form of the trials is not yet determined, since Bush's previous plans were tossed by the courts. Now he'll try to persuade Congress to pass legislation to accomplish that which the courts wouldn't let him: use evidence obtained by torture and not reveal any information to the defense because of national security. In other words, no due process. Might as well just shoot 'em now.

In his speech announcing this, Bush once again stated that we don't torture, we use "alternative interrogation techniques." If those techniques aren't torture, then why has the administration worked so hard to keep these detainees far away from any protections of law or treaty? If we're not violating Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, then why have we been so careful not to call these people prisoners of war?

There are all sorts of practical reasons to oppose torture. First is, it doesn't work. If you want a bogus confession, then torture's your instrument, but if you want actual useful information, forget it. In his speech, Bush claimed that torturing one of these detainees, Abu Zubaydah, gave us vital information: the name of Ramzi bin al Shibh. Sounds good, huh? The problem with this story is, it's a lie. We already had that name; in fact, an FBI agent testified to Congress about him before Zubaydah was captured.

The other practical reason to avoid torture is that what goes around, comes around. If another country treated one of our soldiers this way, we'd be launching air strikes. Oh, but these people are evil; of course, they think we're evil, too.

But practicalities aside, I just can't fathom how someone who claims that his Christian faith is a fundamental part of his life and drives his decisions can justify torturing another person. Is that person not also a child of God? Doesn't the sanctity of human life matter here, too?

There's only one thing that drives this administration, and it's not faith in God, conservative principles, or freedom and democracy; it's lust for power.