Torture or Necessary Coercion?

I often do not agree with Bill O'Reilly but occasionally he makes sense. But the liberals and John McCains position on terrorist interrogation is utter nonsense. McCain was tortured by the Vietnamese who had signed the Geneva convention but failed to abide by it, as have none of the countries we have ever gone to war with. So his position that it will endanger US troops in future wars by interrogating terrorists is misguided. Thus I am posting this editorial in full.
Tough Terror Talk
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

Now, I've got a question for you tonight: If terrorists captured your child, what kind of action would you support? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

Let's stop all the nonsense, shall we? A month ago, two FOX News journalists were captured by terrorists in Gaza. Their lives obviously were in danger. Thank God they were released.

But if some terrorist was captured, and had information about where these guys were being held, are you telling me the authorities can only ask them name, rank, and jihad number? Is that what you're telling me John McCain, Colin Powell, and other senators who oppose coerced interrogation?

Thanks to Newsweek magazine, we now know what we're talking about. As you may know, the military, thanks to the McCain bill, can now not do anything to coerce information out of suspected terrorists -- nothing at all. In fact, according to The Wall Street Journal, American police have more latitude in interrogating criminals than the military has in questioning detainees captured on the battlefield.

Now there's a debate over what the CIA can do. The president wants the agency to be able to use the following techniques: cold rooms, forced standing for a long period of time, sleep deprivation, grabbing a suspect's shirt, slapping a suspect's belly, and using loud noise and bright lights. That's it. That is the torture nation.

In an unbelievably foolish display, far-left [New York Times columnist and] Princeton Professor Paul Krugman poses this question. "Why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture?"

Well, here's your answer, professor, not that you'd ever consider anybody else's point of view but your own. The president's trying to stop attacks on Americans. Get it, sir?

We tried to get some of the senators opposed to coerced interrogation on “The Factor” this evening. Most of them are hiding under their desks. That's because they know the American people realize this whole debate is absolutely ridiculous.

Breaking it down, when lives are at stake, name, rank and jihad number doesn't cut it. And I believe there will be a compromise on the Senate floor. And President Bush will get the power to order the CIA to use tough interrogation methods.

I also believe the debate has hurt Senator McCain, and Colin Powell, and others who put a torture label on things that are obviously not torture.

Causing a suspected terrorist discomfort is necessary at times to get information. Those techniques have to be closely monitored and used only with presidential approval. But enough is enough with this baloney. We're fighting a war here. All the theory in the world is not going to defeat the enemy -- who is laughing at us as this debate takes the Senate floor this week. They're laughing at us.
And that's "The Memo."