Waterboarding versus killing as many terrorists as possible - which is really the more humane practice ?


As you may know, Obama has increased the "drone war" effort and with some success. That is a good thing, of course. Anytime the bad guys are killed, a victory of sorts is registered.

Our questions is this: why is flat out killing the terrorists a more humane consideration than waterboarding them in the presence of a staff of doctors -- an interrogation technique that leaves the "suspect" both alive and physically unharmed? (who is the idiot, here?)

Bush was evil for harsh interrogation practices while Obama is a good guy for deciding to kill as many terrorists as he can and killing them with "anonymously guided drones" that depersonalize the combatant and kills civilian population (contrary to popular belief).

But with all this talk of anti-harsh interrogation and killing poeple as an option, we remind our readers that when high value terrorists are captured, they are sent out under the Bush policy of rendition to countries such as Pakistan. The recent capture of a Taliban leader in Pakistan is being pursued with Pakistanis interrogation techniques. The US military field manual is nowhere in sight. While Obama pretends to be on the high road, he allows for critical captures to be interrogated as before - so his interrogation policy is not all bad -- it is some Bush !!

Just askin' ---- jds
.

No comments:

Post a Comment