I say: kill everybody who is a threat to USA, after taking out all the informations needed. They lost their right to a decent treatment when they joined the terrorist party. Most care more about guilty terrorists than inocent babies.

So how can we broke something that didn’t even apply to the situation?

In my mind, our troops are the foremost reason what we should not torture. We are a party to the Geneva Conventions and the expectation is that our enemies adhere to them as well. If we do not adhere to them, it takes away our moral authority to make the demand that our soldiers are treated accordingly.

If our enemies do not adhere to the conventions, does torture become acceptable (an eye for an eye)? Where do we draw the line? Did Bush cross that line? Was it justified? Was it necessary to torture that guy 183 times in one month? Do the Geneva Conventions need to be updated to account for terrorists? How should these interrogations be handled in the future?

I think that these are darn good questions that need to be answered.

What alarms me the most is the republicans refusal to investigate the issue. I don’t trust politicians and their refusal makes me think that they are trying to cover something up. I think that the issue should be brought out into the open and debated. The debate is what is important. Without it, this issue is going to become a festering sore. I don’t want a witch hunt, but if (and only if) it is obvious that a law was violated, then there should be prosecutions.

As a side note, I use a simple method to determine if it is torture: if it was used during the Spanish Inquisition, it probably is torture.