Washington D.C. is ablaze right now over what constitutes torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, and who knew what, when they knew it, and who gave the needed approvals to proceed forward. All this Monday morning quarterbacking about what was done over the years in a post Sept. 11th world and what is the agreed upon definition of torture. Just the fact that we are debating whether our methods are defined as torture is evidence itself as to how tame they are comparatively otherwise it would be obvious. We are a nation currently at war and have been in some form since the 2001 attacks, and we are arguing and disparaging ourselves over the treatment of detainees that have participated in terrorist acts or have knowledge of future aggression aimed at America. It is very simple, exposing a detainee to discomfort which results in information that saves American lives must be carried out regardless of how we define it or if we choose to acknowledge it. There is no elected official that will withhold support for this decision when a massive loss of American life is looming, and if they do, they should be removed from their respective office and prosecuted for neglecting to defend America from its enemies. In regards to any of our citizens that are against this practice, they are simply being naïve in choosing to be an ideologue because they have the safety and luxury of being such as they sit comfortably in their homes. There is little doubt that if they or their families were in imminent danger, they would be demanding that the Government take all necessary actions to prevent any peril. Think of the 3000+ lives from the attacks in 2001, or maybe 10,000 or more lives in the next attack, who is going to obstruct the prevention of an impending catastrophe such as this by demanding that we do not pour water on someone’s face, sleep deprive them, or expose them to a cold room or any other technique that does not injure them physically. How nice would it be if our adversaries gave the same consideration to our combatants instead of their brutal beheadings or executions? The discomfort of detainees should be absolutely subordinated in all respects to saving the lives of Americans from an attack, and it is important to note that the detainees do have the freedom to choose the results through their willingness to cooperate or not.

It would be nice to think that we live in a kind and peaceful world free from the evils of men, but it is not reality, there are people who find it honorable to kill us. The use of these techniques is reasonable once taken in context of the tremendous losses that can be prevented from applying them and it is not like they are being used for entertainment purposes, but instead because it is strongly deemed they will produce actionable information. We already know what our enemies are willing to carry out on our people just to send a message. America tends to paralyze itself with playing by the rules or going through an approved checklist upon any action or conflict, meanwhile people with evil intentions act with reckless abandon for any purpose they desire. It is not hard to figure which of these approaches is at a distinct disadvantage, and any exhibited softness will be used to our detriment. We are bringing discomfort to people that have information of great consequence to our safety while they are simply massacring people to create terror, and we are foolishly criticizing our actions even though they must continue whether publicly acknowledged or not. It will be regrettable to see the reaction after a major attack on our people if knowledge is later obtained that shows it could have been avoided with some water or a cold room. I think we all know how that will turn out, and maybe we should continue this mindless debate at that time.