Quote:I find it interesting that some people don't trust our government with a lot of things, but are okay with them torturing people.  Or "enhanced interrogation techniquing" them.  Potato, Potato.

First off, the government isn't torturing anyone.  In most instances, it's the military or intelligence communities involved in interrogating enemy combatants.  It's the government that always injects itself and winds up screwing things up.  If they left the military to fight wars to win, and not try to run some politically correct, antiseptic military incursion that has zero collateral damage, letting them use whatever tactics are necessary in order to achieve victory, we wouldn't see these protracted situations.  War is ugly.  There was a time when we recognized this as a nation, and when we understood this reality, we defeated tyranny in Europe (twice) and Japan.  When the politicians started to inject themselves into military actions, we wound up with boondoggles like Vietnam.

 

That's not to say there should be limitations, and I'm not advocating the kind of torture techniques that our enemies use regularly to break their opponents.  But, what the politically correct crowd defines as torture is laughable in comparison with what our enemy does, and it's not even remotely close. 

 

If there are documented ways to extract critical information from a prisoner, and it requires extraordinary measures comparable to what we've heard used by our people, so be it.  War is war, and it's not part of war to offer prisoners spa treatments and cable tv.  If a tactic has proven to be ineffective in getting actionable information, then you toss it aside and try something else.  People say it doesn't work.  Osama bin Laden was caught/killed based on information that was extracted from water boarding.  That wasn't the only actionable intelligence that we got from that resource.  The fact that results aren't reported in the media doesn't mean it's not happening.  

---