What a ridiculous rant, Zyph. :doh
I have never equated waterboarding vs beheading. One is torture, the other is outright murder. I hold the US to a higher standard than the Taliban, and would never imagine beheading to become US policy in a time of war. Then again, I never expected torture to be acceptable either. But that has happened, and the pedistal that the US sat high on when it came to world view on humane treatment came falling down. C'mon... you're better than that.
You've equated waterboarding to everything the terrorists due in regards to "torture".
You've essentially equated waterboarding to shoving sharp objects up someones fingernails.
You've equated it to flaying skin from peoples bodies.
You've equated it to castration.
You've equated it to rape.
You've equated it to breaking bones, potentially to the point of paralysis.
And on and on.
And where exactly does it stop?
Is sleep deprivation exactly the same as cutting off body parts?
Is tearing up a holy book exactly the same level of wrongness as killing someones family member in front of them while they're bound?
Is screaming at someone and threatening to beat them exactly the same level of wrongness as physically beating them to the point that they'd be dead if not getting some basic medical attention?
No, sorry, there is no other generalized "bad thing" in this world that I believe the worst actions that fall under its umbrella is
exactly the same as far as how "bad" it is as every other action under that umbrella no matter how much more benign or lighter they are. I don't hold that standard to lying. Our law doesn't hold that standard to breaking of the law. Yet magically its supposed to apply to torture.
Yes, I absolutely have an issue with these milder forms of torture being used as part of common every, generalized, SOP for our military and intelligence forces. No, I have absolutely no issue with using these kind of "torture" techniques on a small number of individuals with a high probability of having actionable or valuable knowledge and have a clearly evident connection with the entities we are at war with if it is kept specifically as an exception rather than a rule defined solely to this encounter.
I do not hold my government to some kind of higher standard than the common sense I hold myself too.
If someone attacks me with fists I'm probably going to just use my fists.
If that person decides to pull out a knife I'm not going to keep using my fists to keep the "moral high ground" of not attacking someone with a deadly weapon if I have a knife near by.
If that person decides to pull out a gun on me I'm not gong to keep using my fists to keep the "moral high ground" of not attacking someone with a deadly weapon if I have a knife near by.
Likewise
I am not in favor of my government attacking unless its been attacked/has clear and decisive reason to believe they're about to be attacked (the government equivalent of getting the first punch on a guy whose walking toward you angrily with his fist ready to punch)
I am fine with my government entering into conventional warfare if its been attacked.
I am actually fine with my government entering into NON-conventional warfare if its been attacked unconventionally (I would have
zero issue with the government if it had authorized the assassination of key Taliban figures after a terrorist attack, or if it authorized assassination against a country who utilized one against us).
I am fine with us using nuclear weapons if another country used it against use we have clear an decisive reason to believe they're about to use it and that is our best or only option.
And I am fine with using more strenuous methods of interrogation or "Torture" if the other side of the conflicts begins to do it to our side.
I do think its possible to do most of those things and still adhere to the idea of staing on the higher ground than those on the other side. While the other sides conventional warfare may not care about hitting citizens (like indiscriminate rocket fire), I agree with the notion of attempting to keep civilian causalities as low as possible. While the other side may use unconventional warfare to target civilians (like terrorism), I think ours should be far more pinpointed and targeted towards the problem rather than citizens when possible. While I would be open to the use of Nuke's in the above situation, I would want us looking at every other option for one that could be just as successful without using nuclear weapons to potentially avoid such devastation. And in the last I would not want us going to the most brutal, violent, and physically permanently damaging types or it being indiscriminately done to one and all simply for the primary reason being for punishment or a random chance to get info.
However I think the entire notion of "Rules of War"
only works when both sides are playing by the rules. When one side routinely and continually disregards and breaks those rules while you try and maintain them then you are essentially fighting with one arm behind your back or more. Now can you win that way? Sure, you can. But likely at far more expense than otherwise. And frankly I find it amazingly hypocritical and frankly a big insulting to watch people bitch about how long the war goes on, how horrible the troop deaths are, how expensive it is, and then get up in arms at every single tiny little thing that happens that's somewhat questionable and makes it out to be the greatest atrocity ever known to man when there are likely 100 acts that are worse for every 1 of those that come up, if not more.
In any fight...from on the school yard all the way up to a world war..."rules" and "Honor" only are useful and worth while if both sides are following it when the defense of another or your life is at stake.