>I'm trying to stay out of any discussion on what defines torture and what is acceptable. My military experience has clouded my view and being an interrogator doesn't help :o)
>
>

I guess, I'm just one of those A types who believes in cutting to the chase. As a cop, we always had those stupid "constitutional rights" that we had to deal with, so we didn't get to torture our prisoners.<g> I could have gotten a lot more detailed information on the underworld, if we could have expanded our arsenal just a little. We play with other countries way too much, instead of letting them know we mean business. This is similar to the way some of my officers used to try to deal with aggressive offenders. I always told them, once a person makes a hostile motion toward you or any other person, take them to the ground as soon as possible. You do not get into a pushing match, you control the situation as quickly as you can, while taking care to do the least damage possible.

In warfare, it's different and yet the same. I always heard about the interrogation techniques in Nam, where they would take several VC up in a plane and then throw one out. The rest started talking freely! I know that sounds brutal, and it is, but when you are at war, I figure there should only be one rule and that is - "there are no rules." I think the Arabs and many others adhere to that and until we adopt it, we'll continue to have these problems.

I've never understood have "rules" of war. It doesn't make sense. Civility is what you have before you reach the breaking point. After that, it's Armegeddon, in my opinion. I know the libs are going nuts just about now, but this is my opinion and I'm welcome to it! War is the absolute last straw in the negotiation continuum. When we get to that point, I think we should go for nothing short of absolute, unconditional surrender.