So as you all hopefully know, after several years the CIA inspector general's report on the torture program run out of CIA was finally released (heavily redacted of course). Now that the cat is officially out of the bag and all the DOJ can't keep doing nothing, so now there is going to be a special prosecutor to investigate the torture program in the most limited way they could get away with. His job is solely to determine if any of the torturers violated Bush's fucked up torture policy and if so can they actually be prosecuted for it. It's a classic move, if anyone is getting fucked it's the grunts on the front line. Not that they didn't do some evil shit, but what the fuck ever happened to "the buck stops here"?

That report is scary. That report is FUCKEN scary.

It is made even more so by the fact that as we read that, we read these Muslim names and think "Man, we were showing those terrorists." But a Muslim name does not mean a threat. Muslims are generally very peaceful. It is so damn frightening to think that they could have been so caught up in their own mechanisms and chaotic groupthink over there that this would be OK'd by anybody at all.

We have prosecuted so many before for so much less. I don't want to know how the world will react when we do nothing.

I would rather be captured by American forces and held in Gitmo (if i was a Jihadist), than be captured as an American and held by a Jihadist.)

I am just being honest. Given the circumstances, I am willing to (rhetorically bet) that every single one of us would choose the same. I am not saying it makes it right as all. But I don't think there should be a greater outrage across the world when the CIA agent blows smoke in a guys face, or throws cold water on him....when the muslim alternative is video taping beheadings with a bowie knife, or beating a non-jihadist to death on tape.

I don’t agree with you Dick, but I think I know where you’re coming from. But it’s easy for you and me to sit in our chairs debating about stuff on the internet. Why don’t we ask some of our members who have seen it first hand what their opinion is? We have a few members that could give us their opinion if they wish too.

No one has ever suggested "reading people their rights in combat", that's a focus-group tested talking point the Republicans developed when people started questioning their total disregard for human rights.
The rules of war are pretty well established among the "civilized" nations through international law.
The rules on how to deal with prisoners and civilians during war are well established by the Geneva Conventions.
All "civilized" nations claim the Nuremberg Principles are universal, thus there are war crimes and crimes against humanity, and every participant bears responsibility (there is no "just following orders").

We treated Nazi prisoners better than we have treated these people.

So yeah, there is the practical side of things where we can become as the monsters we fight, or there is the side of principles and laws and inalienable universal human rights. You don't believe in "shoulds" and become unrestrained or you do and resist doing the things you shouldn't. I really don't expect the people on the front lines to never independently do fucked up shit, but we executed people after World War 2 for doing the kind of shit that has been made official policy. I expect us to set an example of civilization to our enemies rather than barbarity. We don't do bad shit, and when we find that we have we stop it and bring justice to those involved. But this is America, we do bad shit.

There is a lot of evidence to support this interpretation, like you said the US never prosecutes its own war criminals. Generally American war crimes are covered up, when they can't be they are still never framed as war crimes in popular discourse. Despite the extensive evidence that government employees designed and implemented policies which directly violated the Geneva Conventions (described by them as "quaint"!) the language of "war crimes" is almost never used in America to describe what has been done. It never really has been to my knowledge, except by the American left but they aren't allowed to be a part of the "national dialogue" except once very briefly when the labor movement shoved their way in to a little corner.

Rhetorically, if we were not us we would be our enemy.

I think that that is a better position to be in though, dialectical tensions and all that. The occasional use of "bringing justice for war crimes" as an implementation of imperial power at least sets some boundaries on acceptable behavior, and even if it only is an excuse it is the kind of excuse that can eventually make itself real. If we use other nations doing fucked up shit as an excuse to fuck them up that risk can act as a deterrent, either to doing the fucked up shit in the first place or to challenging our empire if they are doing fucked up shit. Think "Saddam's rape rooms" (never children until we took them over) compared to the genocidal campaign of cannibalism against the Mbuti. Or the razing of Grozny compared to the invasion of South Ossetia.

Bad shit as an excuse for fucking shit up:
One of the major justifications for attacking Iraq both times was the violation of human rights and history of war crimes, that they were mostly done as our ally with our awareness and without consequence (and possibly even with some assistance) is irrelevant unless you hate our freedom.

Bad shit no one cares about:
There is never a reason to get involved in the Congo unless resource extraction is threatened, systematically hunting and eating the Mbuti like animals in order to seize their territory would if anything lead to increased resource extraction and thus doesn't challenge our empire in any way.

Bad shit used as both carrot and stick:
Russia was being cooperative and pacifying Chechnya was in our interest, it was effectively a quid pro quo until relations deteriorated somewhat and Grozny became an occasional minor talking point (even more minor once the war on terror became an acceptable rhetorical frame for killing Muslims and it's back to quid pro quo).

Not enough bad shit to justify a real response:
Russia conquered South Ossetia without explicitly engaging in their usual style of unrestrained skullfucking, despite the sound and fury of Georgia's pet politicians in America they stayed within the bounds of acceptable behavior necessary to seize the internationally recognized sovereign territory of a dysfunctional nation transitioning into the periphery of our empire (and thus is not particularly important).

Sounds like the last time I visited the South.

Seriously though...

I don't think there is enough info in your scenario to definitively say what I would do.

With the limited info I have, I do not know that this person has actually done anything criminal or has any actual awareness of potential criminal acts. I personally would enjoy beating the shit out of them, but assuming I have goals beyond the brief visceral pleasure of inflicting some righteous brutality, I would of course not beat them.

If the idea is that I'm supposed to be gathering info I would use the most effective known method for extracting reliable intel from a prisoner, I would treat them as a fellow human being while systematically manipulating them towards a new ideology which provides motive for complete cooperation.

In the case of a right wing religious fanatic I'd want a team of political scientists and theologians with expertise in whatever their existing belief system is, preferably at least one of whom was raised in the same culture, and an expert chef who knows how to cook culturally appropriate food. I would probably play the baddest cop, the various experts would play different degrees of bad to good cop with the one who grew up in the same cultural context playing the "goodest" cop. Food quality would be adjusted up or down when appropriate, probably need a medic to monitor physiological response to figure out the best effect, my guess is good and/or culturally appropriate meals would improve their mood and communicativeness while crappy meals could serve as a subtle form of punishment. Worst case, find a shrink to diagnose them with depression and/or ADHD so you can spike the food with useful medications. So, assuming that in your scenario it's my first time in the room and the right wing religious fanatics first interrogation, and that they are from a religious tradition that includes Jesus:
I would use the bucket of water to wash their feet. It would be the ultimate opening move, total and complete mindfuck! As soon as they become non-cooperative it's baddest cop time and on with the show.

Or alternately, I could just fucking waterboard them until they shit themselves in terror and start telling me whatever story they think I want to hear.

Honey and vinegar yo! I hate flies, but if I want to get rid of them its easier when they want to step in the trap.