I think the truth of the matter is that those who are so outraged by the idea of torture simply don't believe that we are really in any danger, therefore torture is not acceptable. We've seen the methods used by Democrats to remain in power - there really doesn't seem to be an underlying morality. While they scream about Iraq, there is no outcry to stop the killings in Darfur and similar situations. Morality isn't the problem but squeamishness is. They seem incapable of confrontation, no matter what the cost of non-confrontation - like the students at Va Tech - even death was preferable to standing up to the man with the gun. Deception is their only weapon - if that fails, they're willing to die. What a bizarre philosophy! It's too dangerous to confront the danger so I'll just play dead - even if it means I _get_ dead_. They're willing to die because nothing is worth dying for. I'm having trouble with this...!
Regardless of how reasonable the argument for torture is made, the argument is utilitarian. That said, if the subject of 'water-boarding' is able to walk away from the experience within sixty seconds without a single wound or having experienced any physical pain whatsoever, how is that 'torture'? To some, however, even pain-free interrogation is 'torture,' a standard so rigid it could be applied to court-room queries, school tests, and even to suspicious spouses.
Mr. Bush is perceived to be splitting hairs, but he is essentially correct: we don't torture. But someone had better come up with a more benign term to accurately describe what it is that we do, because simply denying what we do as being torture only acts to feed the controversy; it makes us look like utilitarians.
I think the issue comes down to one of definitions. What is torture? Clearly no one can be stupid enough to struggle under the false impression that asking a hostile person nicely for desired information will yield any fruit. Further, one would be equally deluded to believe that we have no need to gain insight into their future plans to save lives. So clearly some level of coercion must be used to gain information. So the question that begs answering is how much coercion is acceptable and appropriate and what goes too far. Personally, suffering through another liberal presidency would be tantamount to torture to me, but I don't see their "candidates" abstaining from attempting to employ that particular technique. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense would draw the line between torture and permissible coercion at the verge of creating real, tangible long-term damage. So sleep deprivation would not be torture but limb amputation would be.
There's an entire fallacious line of reasoning that goes "if we don't torture then our enemies will likewise not torture in reciprocity. That however is, as we all know nothing but silliness. To them we are but infidels, lower and more loathsome than camel dung. They will always torture our troops regardless of how we treat their comrades. They will, in the end use a justification if one is present and handy, but they have no need of one. Sure they'll scream "Abu Grahib", but they were torturing us long before that even occurred. For them screaming "Abu Grahib" is just another weapon. It is one that divides us and weakens us and some of us are ripe targets for it.
Torture always works. Look how many witches confessed in the middle ages.
The ones who complain about torture would be the first to complain if they were maimed, injured or lost loved ones in a terrorist attack. I don't want to torture anyone but we do need to know what these monsters are up to.
There is a very interesting story in the Washington Post today about a group of WW2 vets who interrogated Nazi brass, quite successfully, without using torture. They are not very happy with what the U.S. is doing now.
Funny you didn't mention that the arguments for torture are the same ones used by the Nazis at Nuremburg. Of course you're not a fascist, you just pretend to be one, right?
I'd love to see how a lib reacts if their child or baby is stolen and they have to um..interrogate the possible rapist or pedophile?..hmmmmm! 
great point@angel !!!
and when i hear of our troops/gov't pulling fingernails out with pliers, then i'll be concerned about us torturing! you know...as long as the terrorists get their sleep...
You know...there are a number of different issues here. One of them is propaganda. The Germans of WWII were not the Al Qaeda that we face today. They were signers to the Geneva Conventions. Their army had many of the same western values that our army had. The SS was not the same army we faced in the field, but aside from their unconscionable treatment of the Jews, they believed in an honor code. Al Qaeda is not a signer of the GC. They do not have prisons - they brutally kill anyone they take, after they have tortured them as much from pleasure, it seems, as from need for information. They pride themselves in being able to stand torture. They do not have a code of honor. In fact, they don't seem to have any sense of honor at all other than the purity of their women, which doesn't apply too much on the battlefield. So...if you tell these people that we absolutely will not lay a hand on them, you give them a major advantage from the getgo. That's not very smart - even if you don't _use_ torture, it's not a bad idea to let the other side dwell on the possibility.
The effectiveness of torture is another factor. Those who assume that our interrogators are just brutal thugs who can't wait to torture prisoners are idiots. No doubt there are a few, but my guess is that they are very low on the totem pole. An effective interrogator is one who learns _useful_ information - if brutality results in false information, it serves no purpose. I find it unlikely that the military is going to use ineffective methods - and brutality may be an ineffective method.
It basically comes down to trust - Dems don't trust the military to be anything but goons.
snake hunters sez,
Honor? Torture you say? What are you
people smoking? Put it down.
When Monsters strap bombs on their own
kids, and fly planes into buildings,
and stone women to death, we cannot begin to get into their mind-set.
The "holy" Imam teaches kids hatred of their blood-brothers, the Jew; in the Madrassa, with Pig & Monkey Cartoons.
Saudi Wahhabism is an old culture.
Petro-dollars spread the mosques to the world. Iran wants their nukes to bring on the final Imam, The 'Madhi'.
We take out the undergound labs, and
very soon friends. Dubya said, "Not On My Watch!" He's knows these human scabs. Gore is half-correct, "It's Global Warming Time Folks!" reb
snake hunters sez,
We Don't Torture...we simply persuade people that are clearly guilty of mass-murder, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed. reb
____________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Commenting by HaloScan
