Military action is not a police function. What the Police, Military, CIA and our Politicians share, however, is an oath to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION and laws of our nation...
I actually am not against torture in certain instances...
Remember...Hitler didn't start Gassing the Jews immediately.
Well, you and I differ on a great deal. For one, I do not believe that we ought to inflict torture (as opposed to
your idea of "torture") on any one at any time for any reason. Period.
[hypothetical]What if he holds out? Remember, you'd only do this in a "ticking bomb" circumstance...What if you're torturing a strong-willed man who will not break? Perhaps by threatening his family and putting them under the knife you might gain his compliance. Hurting ONE innocent family member of a scumbag terrorist is worth it if you save thousands or millions?[/hypothetical]
The most pathetic and morally indefensible position is McCain's: outlaw all effective legitimate techniques, but expect our men to break the law and actually go hammer & tongs when it might be critical. Thus, depriving our men of the proper tools to do their job, while maximizing their exposure to legal consequences when they find that patty-cake don't cut it. Disgusting.
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, fiddling with food to wig out his internal clock, mind games, intimidation, etc. are not torture. They are legitimate interrogation techniques with no lasting effects on the subject. It is a recent innovation by the vile, simpering weasels of the West to categorize each and every effective technique as "torture."
The Brits mentioned earlier were not tortured, if the description given is accurate. They were ill-treated for no good reason and Iran ought to have paid a steep price for doing such to one of the civilized countries.
Interrogation of unlawful combatants is most certainly in accord with the COTUS. It has ever been so and ever will be, barring an Amendment.
Finally, I can not take seriously any argument that relies on reducto ad hitlerum.