Torture: can we handle the truth?

In the movie, A Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson, played the role of a marine colonel and commanding officer of a base in Guantanamo, Cuba. While being questioned on the stand about tactics used by his men, the colonel was sternly prodded to tell the truth. His response was, “You can’t handle the truth.” I thought about that as I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee question attorney general nominee, Alberto Gonzales, regarding his views on the treatment of prisoners suspected of terrorism. I wondered how we, as Americans, can protect ourselves from enemies who are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to take a lot of us with them.

So, what would the average American be willing to do to prevent another tragedy? Suppose you knew for a fact that your family was in imminent danger of being murdered in a plot masterminded by bin Laden or some other homicidal psycho? Suppose, further, that you knew a confession from him would save the lives of your family. Would you be willing to have the authorities use torture to obtain it? If your answer is no, then you evidently think it’s more noble to allow your family to suffer and die than it is to force a confession and save them. As far as I’m concerned that’s not nobility, it’s stupidity. Worse, it’s a flawed philosophy that jeopardizes our attempts to withstand the threat to our survival.

This debate is not new. Every Philosopher from pre-Socratic to the present has analyzed and discussed this.
The issue revolves around two distinct ideas. I swim upstream (against the current PC 'wisdom') on both: One is that "Rules of War" are a positive quality of modern Civilization. The other is that the "Rule of Law" is an end in itself."

Only the totally ignorant, the clueless, can argue with a straight face that either "Rules of war" or the "Rule of Law" has any effect whatsoever on terrorists.
But let's start with war. It should be a last resort, and why should there be rules? Finish it by any means possible as quickly as possible. Want to call yourself civilized? Make it as brief as possible. As long as it's not asymmetrical, and third parties and non-participating civilians are not targetted, go for it. Civilians manufacturing weapons, or any kind of support for the aggresives are participants. It's not rocket science.

Now let's talk about terrorists. Should they be handled by the same rules of war? By civilian criminal laws?
My view: neither. They should be dealt with as we rid ourselves of vermin.
Criminal law is based on common agreement of the law, the rules and their application. The only requirement is that all participants are willing to exist within the same guidelines, perfect or imperfect though they may be.

Terrorists don't qualify.

If they can't agree to the rules, they are subject to the same results that they seek for others: swift and arbitrary anihilation. No niceties and no pretense. Others can choose their own rules for saving their civilization.
I have no doubts about my view of the matter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.