As the debate continues over the treatment of enemy detainees at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay and in prisons in foreign countries around the world, it is worth taking some time to examine the cultural chasm that exists between Americans and other cultures around the world. As a society, we Americans pride ourselves on adhering to the highest standards of human rights.

We are a comfortable society with luxuries about which most countries can only dream. We have more consumer choices at our disposal on any given day than many citizens have in a lifetime. We give generously to our fellow American citizens in need and to our foreign neighbors in crisis. We have a soft spot for those who are suffering and in pain and for those who do not have the same comforts we have at our fingertips. Does that make us weaker or do our higher standards make us stronger? What should we do when enemy combatants or terrorists use the freedoms we extend to them as part of their tools to perform acts of atrocity?

We hear that our armed forces are not abiding by the Geneva Convention standards in our treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay; and, that we have resorted to extreme torture. While I have not visited the prison nor do I have access to any inside intelligence information, what I have read regarding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners convinces me that they are being given better treatment than they would ever receive in most non-Western countries. Some of the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay and in other places around the world have been highly trained to kill U.S. non-combatant civilians; and, they have done so.

So, what is torture? How should we define it? While in law school in the early 1980's, I was engaged in a case discussion on the appropriate behavior and legal conduct for uniformed police officers interrogating a suspect. I was surprised by how my classmates reacted to the tactics used by the officers in the case being reviewed. The class was appalled by the treatment of a detainee having to sit for 5 to 6 hours without a restroom break, all this while the officers were hurling verbal insults and yelling threats at the detainees. Many of these soon-to-be attorneys thought this treatment to be far beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior, and many considered this “torture.”

From my perspective, as a former prisoner-of-war who endured severe treatment in captivity much worse than what is allowed under the Geneva Convention, I recognized my fellow students' sentiments, but I could not sympathize with them. I realized then that what we as a country and a society define as torture or a violation of civil rights does not constitute inhumane treatment in other countries or cultures.

Before we decide to ban “torture” as an instrument to extract valuable intelligence, we have to be careful how it is defined. I agree with John McCain. We need to write standards and/or legislation that guide us in our treatment of detainees. We need to take the broader uncertainty and narrow it. However, I think we can achieve this without tying the CIA's hands. For, individual judgment will always play the largest role in any interrogation. It takes into account the nature of the threat we are trying to prevent and the urgency of action required. The treatment of an enemy soldier who is captured fighting against our troops on the battlefield must differ from our interrogation of a Jihadist found trying to obtain radioactive material for a planned radiation bombing of a U.S. city. In the first case, the information extracted is not critical to national security. The second scenario is a threat against all Americans. It has marked national ramifications against which we would be grossly irresponsible not to use all reasonable means necessary to prevent any harm to the civilian populations.

The Geneva Conventions was established in an era when battles were fought on clearly defined battlefields against other soldiers. The enemy was a member of a recognized nation's uniformed armed forces, not a nebulous group of terrorists who commit genocide against civilians—as today's terrorists behave. Legislation will not prevent the abuses we are trying to avoid, but it will give rational, highly trained, and compassionate American soldiers and sailors parameters and boundaries. It will guide them in their difficult jobs. As prodigies of our great society, as trained students of the most powerful and best military and intelligence network in the world, the men and women of the U.S. military and federal intelligence agencies must be imbued with our trust. We must rely on their distinctly American character and values to guide them to carry out our national mission and to protect our national interests around the world. No law can match those inherent standards.