To Torture or Not to Torture? That Is The Question...
I firmly believed in torture... I meant to say, I firmly believed in “enhanced interrogation techniques” of terrorist suspects.
That may have changed today.
Listen, for me, the most important thing regarding the gathering of intelligence, as it relates to the War on Terror, is the acquisition of that intelligence – by any means necessary. Whether it is by waterboarding terrorist prisoners, or showing them naked pictures of Snooki, I don’t care as long as the intel we acquire is solid and trustworthy. Torture – as horrible as it may be – is warranted, if in fact it represents the technique that results in the most efficient attainment of information. After all, these barbaric idiots have none of my sympathy.
Seems to me it’s been proven time after time, torture's not the answer. And I’m not one to run against the current of rationality – I’m not a member of the Tea Party.
It’s easy to play the holier-than-thou card, and argue torture is wrong and never justified. Well, that’s wrong. That’s a sissy approach. Torture is wrong only if it leads to incorrect information that puts in danger the lives of our military.
Now, there was an article today on CNN.com titled, FBI Agent's 'Mental Poker Game' against al Qaeda, about Ali Soufan, a former FBI Interrogator, who was in charge of interrogating imprisoned members of al Qaeda. Soufan, a Lebanese-born American, argues for a different approach to interrogation techniques.
And boy, does it make a lot of sense...
I don’t subscribe myself eternally to any idea or ideology. I do have my own perspectives and political views, but I like to think they’re based in rational thought and solid logic. It’s why I always go out of my way to try and properly interiorize views that contrast with my own. If I end up concluding those contrasting views are reasonable, I now have a new perspective I have to respect.
Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati