Thanks for the great posts, Buford. I'd like to go on record as saying I'm not in favor of drawing and quartering, chopping off hands, feet or other body parts, and I'm not in favor of any treatment of unlawful enemy combatants that involves the ACLU.
I'm perfectly OK with degrading prisoners of war -- what is the point of interrogations without degradations of some kind? This word is too broad and vague and should definitely be vetoed.
I don't think the taxpayers should have to provide lawyers for any foreigners who entered this country illegally, except for minor children like Elian Gonzales, for instance. Nor for unlawful combatants.
I agree we should provide physical health care of basic situations, but once these international do-gooder groups or the Anti-Christian Lawyers United (ACLU) gets involved, you get lawsuits by prisoners who want chunky peanut butter instead of smooth (actual case).
That said, will one of you please define exactly what forms of torture you think ARE acceptable? Be specific.
I'm a computer programmer. I would be insulted if we started asking truck drivers, CPAs, or interrogation experts what are the most effective and acceptable ways to code. So explain to me why a bunch of know-nothings (that includes our illustrious Senate) who have no experience in this area are speculating or asking other know-nothings to speculate on what they think works, doesn't work, or should be acceptable. Leave it to the experts.
I already provided you with a link at reply 74. Read the whole article.
Then ask yourself this question. Is it more humane to risk the lives of thousands of innocents to spare the well being of one terrorist? To me, THAT is heinous!