And thus descend to the very barbarity they wish to reduce us to.

Since when do we let terrorists dictate our behavior?

The imbecillic psychology of a schoolyard bully.

I would have to work hard to improve on EO's post here and would say that I generally agree with his opinion. However, I believe our standards of torture need to redefined. And unlike Magellan I believe we should use levels of torture in congruence with the level of threat beyond the limits of the Geneva convention standards that consider that acts the enemy is engaging. Individuals living in a civil society lose liberties as they act further out of the bounderies of ordered liberty. High level terrorists are organizing violence that threatens our way of life. Our new procedures and guidelines need to reflect that level of threat. This should not be misconstrued as a defense of the capricious disregard for procedures and limits in favor of butchering our enemy quid pro quo- it's the exact opposite. I believe our procedures need to be changed and torture not only needs to be redefined but accepted at different levels and applied with some due process. What that process is and what each technique shall be I have no idea. But this whole discussion seems to be some sort of pathetic shell game to avoid the use of torture by its redefinition. To me that's ridiculous. Now, to the question we should not simply use torture because the enemy is doing so. Torture needs to be applied, like I suggested, with due process upon some priori standard to reach a moral ends.***** I suggest everyone catch the History Channel's documentary on Interrogation- it was phenomenal. There were numerous parts I found interesting and some I had known but totally forgot about.

Not neccessarily. As I stated in a nother review here, while it would take me too much time to convey what I mean, there is a difference in the kind of extraction I am lending to as opposed to being flat out barbaric. Terrorist use TERROR. Hence the name...my methods are more in line with coersion. Very Strong Coersion. You would be interested to find out how much pain you can inflict on a human body without putting a mark on it. Put someones head in a vice, the pain is more than any human can bear while the skull can take more pressure than you would believe. Sound sick I know. Its just knowledge I have from a part of my martial arts training as a young lad. Dont calim to be a bad-ass, just interesting facts that I remembered.

It will only piss them off.

No we should NOT use torture at all. If America wants to be loved around the world, we need to establish ourselves as compassionate, caring loving people and set a good example. We need to apply human rights at the forefront.

I agree with most of EO's excellent post. I guess the primary problem I have with the current administration is that they HAVE been fluid in how to treat the torture issue. Intentional or not, there has been a somewhat public debate complete with torture memos cranked out by lawyers aiming to redefine the standards of torture. This legal wrangling has been going on in parallel with our military having to deal with very real detainees in very hostile places. Not surprisingly, this clear desire on behalf of the Bush administration to stretch the limits of what had been defined as torture has appeared to lead to confusion on the part of our military as to what is permitted on POWs, what is permitted on enemy combatents, how to tell the difference between the two, and how the location of the detention center is factored in. As I have been the most outspoken against torture on this site, I assume that EO is referring to me when he says screaming liberals accuse(ing) our servicemen of misconduct. This is not accurate. I accuse the current administration of being fluid in dealing with the torture issue, sending mixed messages in regards to what constitutes torture, and refusing to take accountability for the resulting abuses. Back to the original point of the post, like EO, I believe we should define our military and interrogation standards, not let them be defined by the most vile of our enemies.

I disagree with this item on two levels. When an enemy commits atrocities, as the islamofascists do today (and have for 40 years) the response of the US (and/or its coalition members) is not fluid. It is not changeable. We do things our way and our military abides by the rules of conduct which has evolved over the past 230 years. Our codes of discipline and conduct are not to be bent because today's enemy is more vile and sadistic, more shameful and cruel than the last. The question implies some discretion on the part of our military because our POW's are terrorists. That is not true. Abu Graib is not our policy, those people are being court-martialed. Our procedures have not changed, I don't care how many screaming liberals accuse our servicemen of misconduct. Secondly, I'm all for RIA members spouting opinions, that's what we do here. But, let's face it, nobody has the juice. Nobody knows what has happened so far, what it is like to contain these POW's, how knowledgeable or clueless they are or what benefit torture might be. We are establishing a new set of standards, the new Geneva Convention (the old pertained to uniformed combatants loyal to a sovereign nation). Islamofascists have no allegiance to any nation, nor generally to any leader. They are rogues, terrorists, anarchists, suicide bombers and our new set of rules must be drawn up with their tactics, their decentralization, their goals and the associated possibilities in mind.