Replies

I have to side with you and against VDH here.

But, he is making a valid point, the most honest among all opponents.

I wish the issue remained in the gray area. But when it forced into the light, there is no way the open society like ours can VOTE for torture.

There is no way to qualify what is acceptable, and what is not. Then we'll get to absurdities listed by VDH. The only protection from abuses is THE CHARACTER of people who are forced to do it.

This false sense of chivalry is romantic nonsense.

Death is the ultimate torture.

If the lives of a thousand Americans are at risk unless you obtain information from one terrorist I think the most humane thing would be to get the information by any means necessary.

Now I agree that mistreating prisoners for revenge or amusement is sadistic and should be outlawed.

But when it forced into the light, there is no way the open society like ours can VOTE for torture.

I can. No problem. No hesitation, with the proviso that we are dealing with terrorists or illegal combatants. For instance, persons caught red-handed servicing a car bonb should be shot on the spot. That's not torture, it's common sense.

And then there's this: I love the nuanced careful choice of words by Mr. Hanson, and I rely on them, ... That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists ...
Here I part company with Mr. Hanson, for I believe that even though it "does not come naturally" to us, often it is still necessary.

Paraphrasing, Winston Churchill said it best: No society or culture was ever saved from extinction by "good" men (speaking of agents, both men and women, parachuted into occupied Europe).