Torture

According to an AP news report, President "Obama called waterboarding 'torture' and said it was 'contrary to America's traditions' during a news conference at the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit."

I have a simple question for President Obama: Mr. President, if one of your daughters was kidnapped by a known child murderer and you captured an accomplice who, you presume on good authority, knows the whereabouts of your daughter and her captor, wouldn't you beat the living crap out of the guy until he told you what he knows?

In order to think clearly on the "torture" issue it is necessary to draw some hard and fast lines.

First we must distinguish between torture used within our society and torture used during a time of war. In our society we operate by the rule of law. All US citizens are treated equally under the law. The law clearly forbids torture as a means for authorities to garner information, say, local police interrogators. [In my example, President Obama would be clearly violating the law if he beat information out of somebody. It would be his decision whether or not to violate the law and accept its consequences.]

However, if a state of war exists between the US and a specific enemy, I consider torture as a legitimate means of gaining critical information from the enemy. Obviously, I am not advocating torture, such as waterboarding, as the SOP for all captured enemy combatants. It's use should be limited to life and death circumstances on the battlefield or otherwise.

War is hell, which is exactly why we must be so very careful making war.

Ron Paul is advocating that the US not go to war unless Congress declares war. This is part of our Constitution.

Once war is declared, all means necessary to win the war are legitimate.

If this is the understanding going into a war, Congress might not be so cavalier about declaring war, and our enemies might not be so cavalier about rattling their sabres against us.