Certainly the above situation (Jarod's post) is atrocious. I do, however, have some ideas of what I would like to see happen when interrogations become necessary. When asked who I sided with (of the mentioned people at the beginning of this thread) I posted my thoughts on another site yesterday, but keep in mind, they're just my thoughts at this time.
I fall somewhere in the middle, I think. There is a potential abuse of power that any president has, and has had over this issue. I believe absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Now the tougher issues. I think that first, we must define torture. Loud music, sleep deprivation, demeaning speech, degrading comments, etc. are not torture, IMO. I have no problem with the use if any of these tactics, whatsoever.
As to real torture, let me start at the first and lead forward. First is surveilance. This is where I do agree with the president, any president, having the right to use spying and surveilance of anyone to keep this nation safe. The difference now is simply publicity. It is no different than Clinton, Carter and Reagan using exactly the same program. But with the Democrats wanting power back so badly, the only way to do it is to tear down every secret we ever had. I believe it will truely weaken the country. If the spying is good enough and the evidence clear that people are terrorists and plotting to do destruction, in this country, then I have no real problem getting them and using tactics on them that will provide information, tactics short of physical abuse. I do not feel long term coherced interrogation is effective. We ought to have some of the best chemical tongue looseners in the world and if we don't, then that should be developed rather than secret prisons. (BTW, don't think for a minute that those just sprung up when Mini Me became president. They were one of Carter's agenda items as well.)
If we get information that the detainee is, in fact, a terrorist and has plotted to kill Americans, then extract the information we can, give them a trial and apply capital punishment or other appropriate punishment handed down by a jury. If we can not conclusively provide evidence that the detainee is, or has been a terrorist, then let the courts deal with them also, either handing down a guilty or not guilty. Holding detainees past a certain time is counter productive anyway. Three years later, what does a detainee know about what is going on in the real world anyway? Let the courts handle them. I don't think the courts can leak any more information about national defense than the Democrats have already.
To sum it all up, I think we can extract information in smarter, more effective means than torture, but I am not against the methods of coherced interrogation for proven terrorists. I think the US has greatly overstepped its boundaries on trying to force the world to conform to our ways of thinking and we need to focus more on NATIONAL defense than on GLOBAL defense. Our worst enemies right now are illegals anyway, IMO.
