Torture

I would be happy if the U.S. government would publicly state that we (the U.S. military) will always treat legal combatants (members of a legitimate opposing military force) in accordance with the applicable Geneva and Hague Conventions....just as we have in the past (and as none of our enemies ever have). Captured military personnel, after all, should be treated with respect regardless of which side of a conflict they are on.

With regard to illegal combatants (terrorists, pirates, brigands, etc.), they will be treated however we damned well please....even "tortured" if necessary. They are not protected by the above mentioned conventions, by the way, even though we normally afford them such niceties.

Keep in mind that we do not use torture to extract confessions (as the communists always seem to want to do). Read some of the many accounts of former POW's of North Korea or North Vietnam.

We do not torture to entertain ourselves. The mistreatment of prisoners by Americans at Abu Ghraib was not torture. Humiliating prisoners just for kicks is inappropriate, juvenile, and unbecoming of U.S. military personnel. It is not torture, however.

Torture as punishment may satisfy a need for revenge, but serves no legitimate purpose, and should be prohibited on moral grounds, if nothing else, but certainly not because we care one bit what "the world" thinks of us. Besides, when our so-called allies get themselves in trouble, who is it that always has to save their butts?

Attempting to legally define torture would be as futile as trying to define bad taste in music, anyway. Forcing someone to listen to a Barry Manilow album would be considered torture by some (most). I'm okay with leaving the interrogation of terrorists to the discretion of the experts. You say you don't trust the experts to make those decisions?......well, you damned well better trust them. Those experts are the ones who protect you from getting blown up or having your throat slit by people who would rather kill you than spend a relaxing day with their own families. I'm talking about bad people here.

Arguing that torture never works is simply denying an oft proven truth - torture always works when applied properly for an appropriate purpose. Don't believe me? Well, I'll bet that, given the opportunity, I could make you give me your social security number and all your computer passwords without even leaving a mark on your body.....and I'm not even very good at interrogation. I could probably even make you admit to being a witch, too.....even if you aren't one.

The strategy of gentle persuasion and developing a personal rapport with prisoners may work when the prisoners are reasonable people (such as ordinary soldiers whose philosophies of life are similar to our own). This approach is said to have worked with some German POW's in WWII. It will not, however, work with Islamic terrorists. They do not share our values and cannot be reasoned with.

Whatever methods our intelligence agencies deem appropriate in dealing with terrorists is okay by me. That's right....I'm not too concerned about how terrorists are treated.

Speaking of torture, try sitting through any of the absurd discussions on torture presented by CNN. Your head will explode.

Your Rights are Obsolete?

An amazing (to me) opinion was published in the Star-Telegram the other day. I was going to comment on it immediately after prying myself off the ceiling, but I had to wait until my blood pressure was back down to normal (114 over 73, thank you).

Lee Gaillard had written an opinion piece entitled "The Second Amendment is Obsolete." (This guy really knows how to grab my attention.) I naively assumed it was meant to startle the reader and sound the alarm that the gun control fanatics are mounting another attack on what many Americans consider to be a sacred right to "keep and bear arms."

Having, on many occasions, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I instinctively reach for my gun (figuratively speaking, of course) when someone suggests that the Constitution (or its "Bill of Rights") should be rewritten or otherwise defaced.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Liberals, who wet themselves at the sight of a firearm, keep bringing up the argument that the reference to "the people" in the Second Amendment refers to the individual states. If the Second Amendment were the only amendment to the Constitution, that argument might not be patently bogus, but the other amendments that refer to "the people" make it clear that the framers of the Constitution knew the difference between "the people" and "the states."

For example: the First Amendment addresses "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

The Fourth Amendment starts out with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

The Tenth Amendment pretty well establishes the fact that "the states" and "the people" are not to be confused.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now.....as I have said before, it's time we either rewrite the Constitution to satisfy contemporary attitudes (say, every 10 years or so - or whenever a new fad attitude comes along) or repeal all laws that are in violation of the Constitution.

The status quo (numerous laws that flaunt the Constitution) makes a sham of our Constitution and our claim to be a duly constituted republic.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I can read.