While we’re the main benefactors of humanity and peace, we should not practice hypocrisy. It is true that we’re hypocrites.

A recent research survey came out that 23% of everyone that is proven innocent of a crime after they have been indicted said that they gave a false confession. A false confession that was coerced. Coersion may not be as bad as torture, but it is along the same lines. If there are over 1/5 of the prison inmates that have given a confession, were false, then we’re doomed.

Of course it is true that our criminal justice system has some cracks and chips, but we can correct these mistakes, if we only had compassion.

Torture/coercion is never good. It is inhumane, in all circumstances, and should be shunned by Americans. It is true, Americans, in general, are hypocrites. Let’s correct this.

Realistically, most young men/women don’t have the experience & knowledge to truly understand the politics behind war/battle decisions. We can certainly claim the young suicide bombers are brainwashed (led to believe one side of the story ).

Perhaps we’re reserving our torture for the wrong people. I also wonder if we’re torturing Saddam, or if we’re feeding him well & keeping him in good health. Is it possible that torture is best reserved for the ‘unknown’ persons unlikely to speak out ?

Thanks for stating your position, Pete. I’m tired of Hatch’s self-righteousness and two-faced Judicial Committee work. I want a Senator with fresh blood who isn’t indebted to his National party and lobbyists.

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Please take special note of the pictures of soldiers giving the thumbs up next to the cadaver of a man who was beaten to death in the shower. Is murder just a “prank”?

Does this make it okay? Of course not. Our soldiers and other U.S. citizens are obligated to treat all prisoners and detainees with proper respect. If this is not happening, measures must be taken to ensure those responsible are dealt with appropriately. This has been done.

To associate the acts of Pfc. Lynddie England and her comrades with torture serves only to demonstrate a stark lack of understanding of what happened there or of what torture really is.

I consider myself a conservative, libertarian republican. I hope to see Orrin Hatch defeated because of his allegiance to special interests, his willingness to collaborate with crackpots like Edward Kennedy, and his gross ignorance of copyright and digital technology issues. On this particular issue, however, I feel he’s on the right side and, Pete, you are on the wrong side.

Personally, I don’t care what our prisoners and detainees think of how they’re treated while they’re in U.S. custody. Until Al Qaeda stops trying to blow up every American (or ally) man, woman and child, terrorist fighters are the enemy. We should provide them with basic human rights (which is more than Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or Abu Musab Zarqawi would ever grant to any U.S. citizen or ally.)

There many, many reasons to not employ torture in any aspect of war. I’ve been told U.S. army field manuals specifically indicate torture is never an effective means of extracting reliable intelligence from detainees. We, as Americans, pride ourselves in abiding by a much higher code of ethics when it comes to human life than those who would fly airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings.

That said, I don’t believe you, I, or most others who may read this have any kind of education, background, or field experience to determine if, when and where torture may be appropriate. I would rather it be available if needed and if it ever has to be used, the proceedings are carefully documented and reviewed. There has to be instances where the price of security (i.e. actionable intelligence) is worth the cost of torture.

There is also a psychological aspect of this legislation. If the government passes blanket legislation barring all American soliders or personnel from ever engaging in any kind of torture of the enemy, it sends a message to our enemies that we’re soft. Allowing some torture under special, thoroughly monitored conditions sends quite a different message. watching us. They will get the message.

This simply will never happen anywhere but on TV.

But let’s entertain his line of reasoning for a moment by providing a similar example. Isn’t it true that there might someday be a situation where a bad, bad man will threaten to set off a nuclear device if I do not molest your daughter? Sure it’s improbable! But I remember seeing something similar to this on TV once. Therefore, by Mike’s reasoning, we must not outlaw child molestation. Right?