« Samuels Commercial | Main | Bug the Loose Lips and Plug the Leak »

While the cat's away ...

Over at Michelle Malkin's blog, there seems to be a little pissing contest
between Karol Sheinin and Andrew Sullivan all started over this post where Karol makes the argument that torture should be used to extract information regarding an imminent terrorist attack.

Ya know ... I'm all for taking on the wacko left that has no clue how to fight terror, protect America, or even bathe ... but that's not what I go to Michelle Malkin's blog for. I'm seeing this crap more and more on the blogs I read, and quite frankly, I could not care less. It all just reminds me of juvenille pissing contests with two kids screaming "oh yeh?" "Yeh!" ... Say your piece, back it up with sound logic, and if someone calls you a 'deranged' for it, either post an update in the original post under the fold, or duke it out in the comments. I mean ... who really wants to read that crap anyways?

Update: I can't spell today ...

Just in case you are interested, I do agree with Karol that some form of torture is acceptable under the right circumstances. It's a judgement call that should be made on a case-by-case basis, and not in a general blanket choice to be applied to all cases. I think that such unadaptable thinking makes you weak, and unable to change your defense tactics as the enemy changes the offense.

While they do mention "torture" in the article, they don't say exactly what method of "torture" torture was used. Did they deny him free Pepsi and only give him water? Did they make him wait to go to the bathroom? Did they send in Jack Bauer to shoot him in the leg and scream "Tell us what you know!" As far as I can tell, everything in the Guardian article is purely speculation, with no evidence of torture other than the implied meaning of the word 'broken.'

If you've read the Guardian much, their idea of tortue would be denying the suspect a gold-leaf Koran or not pointing in the correct position of Mecca for afternoon prayer ... Until I see any evidence of real torture, and the associated circumstances, I withold judgement in this case. Without that information, how can you really judge anything about it?

Comments

Torture can never be justified. If someone has to resort to torture to get intelligence, they are incompetent.

I suggest you use methods developed by brigadier general David Irvine (Ret.) which are a kinder, gentler interrogation style: Legal under international military law, effective against the most stubborn enemy, and - above all - moral.

That's where we have a difference of opinion. I believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If one person who intends to kill me, my family, or my countrymen must suffer to save their lives, I have no moral issue with that. Fighting a war is an ugly thing, and sometimes you have to make ugly decisions in order to protect yourself from the enemy. It's not a decision that is easy to make, and many aren't strong enough to. I don't know if I could make that call if it came down to it, but that's why we have people in those positions with the strength to make those calls. Without strong people like that, we are all surely lost.

Post a comment