The difference between physical pressure and torture

On more than one occasion, I’ve read that one of the bedrock beliefs in the United States is our assumption that we treat captured enemies humanely, and any deviations represent a lack of fidelity to American ideals. In other words, there is a faulted assumption a policy of “zero tolerance” exists when it comes to physical pressure. The concept that the USA has to fight the war against Islamic extremists without the ability to use pysical pressure under the most pressing circumstances is the same as tying our hands behind our backs. This moral arrogance is totally absurd.

The gratuitous use of physical pressure of the Abu Garib prison variety should (and is) be against regulations and punishable to the full extent of the law. Obviously, this was a perverted abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers who were not formally trained to work in this type of environment. If one were to contrast the video tapes of Saddam’s henchmen throwing people off of 10 story buildings (just for laughs), agaisnt the Abu Garib scanadal, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Saddam committed political torture as part of a long term strategy. That is torture with a capital “T”.

They say that more atheists are converted in foxholes than in Churches, and that saying probably would be true if critics of physical pressure were responsible for handling a “ticking bomb” scenario. What would critics of physical torture suggest if their son/daughter was kidnapped by the likes of Al Quida’s Al-Zarqawi, who has a messy habit of decapitating his prisoners on video? What would critics of physical torture suggest the police do if they knew that a live dirty nuclear bomb was in Manhattan, and had captured someone that was in a position to help - but they refused? Would they put them in time out?

The Geneva Conventions are still relevant, in so far as they outline our virtues - how we wish we could act under a perfect situation, but coventional explosive devices, as well as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamic extremists are an insane combination. The enemy we face today may be crude in his methods, but his faith makes him extremely lethal, hard to contain, and he has no “rules of war” to constrain him. This enemy perceives us as weak minded and without resolve, and part of their strategy is to exploit our democracy to promote their cause. Those who propose a “zero tolerence” to physical pressure are projecting their virtues and morals in a hyothetical world, leaving those who deal in reality to pick up the body parts. Our enemies speak our language and they understand us too well. They know our Achilles heel – it’s our innocence.

No one in their right mind would support “torture”, but under a “ticking bomb” scenario, I would expect our governemt to use whatever physical pressure needed to produce results. We just have to make sure that when we ski down this slippery slope, we are very, very carefull.