[Redcloak]

The threat of torture is often more effective than torture itself. ("Room 101") Of course, that threat is empty if the goblin knows beforehand that the CIA isn't allowed to actually hang him up by his toenails.

[Allen H]

Exactly, which is why it was so important that President Bush made the threat to terrorists that if they use a nuclear device in the United States or in the field, we well respond in kind. It isn't actually "doing" an act that is the most important thing. It's the stated willingness to do a thing that is more important. If an enemy knows you are all in, and will do whatever it takes, history has proven that the enemy is not as welling to go to the bring. Like the Soviet Union.

However, if you prove categorically, like liberals would, that nukes are totally off the table no matter what, then there is no reason for the terrorists to NOT use nuclear devices in America. Why not? If liberals were in charge and did just that, the terrorists have nothing to lose by using nuclear devices in American cities. That is what liberals don't understand with "torture". It's not actual torture that gets people to turn over information. It is the threat of torture without laying a finger on them that can, and has in the past, made them break.

I have two close friends who, one in the past, and one currently, serve/d with the IDF and it's common knowledge that just the threat of torture gets information out of terrorists. They're not battle hardened, they're not well trained, and most of them shoot machine guns with "spray and pray" mentality. From what I have seen, here and other places, everyone on the "anti-torture" side has a fundamental lack of facts and information on the subject, and uses the simplistic argument that "if we do such and such we're as bad as them". Bull. The fact that the government allows debate and the military has the rules it has, PROVES that we're NOTHING like the terrorists. And given that all these terrorist captives we've captured WERE captured are still alive and not shot on sight, as the Geneva Convention states, that also shows that we are NOTHING like the terrorists.

I would suggest that Senator McCain actually read the Geneva Conventions before he starts telling the military what they do or do not need to adopt. He couldn't even cut his book tour short to appear for the vote which would have put military personnel in jeopardy of war crimes trials during a time of war. Although, perhaps we should incorporate ALL Of the Geneva Conventions into military protocol. Then, we won't have to take any of them prisoner, we can just shoot them even if their hands up. That, plainly and clearly, is what the conventions say Geneva Convention signatories have the right to do to terrorist fighters conducting a gorilla war, while in civilian clothing against uniformed combatants. So by all means, lets incorporate the Geneva Conventions into the U.S. Military, then we can shoot them all even if they surrender and this argument will be moot.