TORTURE, AMERICA & OBAMA There has been a lot of talk about whether or not America deployed torture as a means of extracting information from terrorist detainees. President Obama has chosen to argue that we have, broadcasting evidence for his conclusion worldwide. The purpose for doing so could not have been to enhance America’s international image, for it accomplished just the opposite. More likely, it is about enhancing President Obama’s image as a compassionate neighbor in the world community, and further discrediting the Bush administration---Barack’s chosen scapegoat for all things bad. The dictionary defines torture as the intentional infliction of great pain to punish or coerce. But, what constitutes great pain is entirely subjective. So what determines the point at which an interrogation technique crosses the line into torture? Some folks might consider a barking dog, a dripping faucet or an endlessly cranky baby to be forms of torture. For others, the term is reserved for a higher level of discomfort and implies the infliction of physical pain. In trying to discern what constituted obscenity, Justice Potter Stewart first acknowledged it is hard to define, but concluded, “I know it when I see it.” The same could be said of torture. For the sake of discussion, let’s break up the concept into two classifications---borderline torture, that which is considered torture by some and obvious torture, that which is recognized as torture by all. The practices of Saddam Hussein’s goons---a hot iron to the chest, being beaten to unconsciousness, electrical pain infliction and the amputation of limbs and tongues---provide good examples of obvious torture. The borderline torture category would include recreating the sensation of drowning, unpleasant confinement, sleep deprivation and the like. While such tactics are unsettling, to say the least, they are unlike obvious torture in that the resulting discomfort stops once the interrogation session ceases. Lumping these coercive interrogation tactics with obvious torture is like blurring the distinction between a harsh word and shaken baby syndrome. In contemplating the proper way for an honorable nation to treat its prisoners of war, let’s think about war itself. Wars are always the result of necessity---real or perceived. No country enters a war believing that losing is an acceptable option. Therefore, one must never lose sight of the primary objective of war---defeating the enemy---and doing so in the shortest possible time and at the least cost in terms of lives and treasure. After all, had we lost World War II, our high standards in conducting wars would be nothing more than an historic irrelevancy. That said, it is paramount that we protect our own troops from abuse by enemy captors. In conflicts against uniformed armies, the Geneva Convention is the agreement between nations that governs treatment and care of wartime prisoners. However, like any contract, it is an agreement that must be abided by both sides in order to remain in force. However, when the enemy is not a uniformed army of another nation, much less a Geneva Convention signatory, and their treatment of prisoners is only restrained by the outer limits of their horrific imaginations, the situation is dramatically different. In such a conflict, the aggressor, by its actions, sets the perimeters of conduct. If the aggressor decides beheading is appropriate treatment for those they capture, they have established that like treatment of their combatants is an acceptable practice. The fact that America has never been accused of any form of obvious torture against this most barbaric of enemies attests to America’s higher level of morality, civilization and respect for human life, and is not the requirement of any legitimate judicial principle. By choosing to publicly portray American interrogation practices as torture, Barack Obama unnecessarily demeans our country, degrades our image, makes our tactics known so enemies can train for them and, worst of all, attempts to draw a moral equivalency between America and radical Islam. Rev. Jeremiah (“Goddamn America”) Wright must glow with profound admiration when reflecting on his like-minded prodigy. After all, tearing down America from a pulpit requires only a hate monger cloaked in a robe, but to do so on the world stage from Washington D. C. must be the fulfillment of a dream. LEAVE YOUR COMMENT ON THE LIBERTY BLOGhttp://libertypenblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/of-scoundrels-and-stimulus.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0