Reply #25: I'll throw my hat into the ring here [View All]

The first part of the question: Personally, yes I did approve the "assassination" of OBL (quotes added because of the ambiguity of the word alone). As for the second part, No, I would not have approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques". The simple answer is because it is illegal. The more complex answer is this. If the United States engaged in this type of information extraction, that makes us no better than the causes we are fighting against. The United States is supposed to be a symbol of tolerance and compassion. Not only are we inciting the rage of our enemies by taking part in torture (there I said it), it also destroys any sort of credibility we have to negotiate an end to a situation peacefully.

Back in WW II, a group of Italian POW's was captured and held at a military installation in the Seattle area. The rules were that these POW's were to be able to walk around public areas, held in the same sleeping conditions as American troops stationed there, and generally, treated the same way that American soldiers were treated on base. Though they were POW's, with a few exceptions, these foreigners felt safe.

I use that example to illustrate a point that if we treat our enemies as our friends in the most desperate of circumstances, it sends a clear message to the powers that be that America, while we have the capability to makes your guys lives hell, out of respect for them and for us, we will not do that. This can create a much more level-headed approach to things.