I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.
I disagree. There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment. So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same. Not all, but many. If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now. I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.
I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.
Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.
If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.
Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.
How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.
And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?
We apologize but we have to do what we have to do to win.
I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with an apology if you were tortured unjustly...
Torture and arbitrary killings are a necessary part of every war.
