This issue of torture has become a words game. Romney says he is against torture but in favor of enhanced interrogations. I actually thought that was brilliant because it shows that he will do whatever it takes while being mindful of not offend anyone’s sensibilities.
But anyway, McCain is wrong. The question from Brit Hume presupposed that the terrorist knew about the nuclear weapons and asked if the candidate would authorize waterboarding of that one man in order to save the life of millions. Is there even a dilemma here? I don’t think so.
And his point about Guantanamo was that he wanted to deny the terrorist access to the legal system. Guantanamo was just a figure of speech. They could be held at a secret base or wherever as you suggested.
You are absolutely right. It is a no brainer. See my post above.
Me either. A police officer abusing a suspect or a parent abusing a child is one thing, but an interrogator using enhanced interrrogtion techniques to stop a nuclear attack is completely something else.
By definition, our terrorist enemies and their state supporters have declared themselves enemies of the civilized order and its humanitarian rules. In fighting them, we must of course hold ourselves to our own high moral standards without, however, succumbing to the utopian illusion that we can prevail while immaculately observing every precept of the Sermon on the Mount.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html