[jwalsh07]

There is no need to torture Saddam Hussein. His ego will fail him again under relentless questioning over a period of time.

However, some consider Colonel Lewis firing of his sidearm near the jihadists noggin as torture. I don't, the situation demanded an answer but if we all want to be honest with ourselves we have to answer this question:

If we could save the lives of men in our command by either physically or mentally torturing a bad guy, would we do it?

[Arpege92]

"If we could save the lives of men in our command by either physically or mentally torturing a bad guy, would we do it?"

Tough question. I'm not sure.

[Torie]

Torturing a terrorist war criminal perp in extreme circumstances when it may save many lives, and there is no other way is a rather mainstream idea. Alan Dershowitz among others has signed off on it, in the context of Osama. Whether Saddam would fit the bill remains to be seen. Granted it won't happen, at least by the U.S. But when he is turned over to Iraq, well, Iraq is Iraq. And who are we to cast the first stone in this circumstance? Although a hopeless sentimentalist about many matters, I tend to be rather unsentimental about these matters. I am real, real Old Testament when it comes to mass killers, who know stuff that could stop a bunch more of their favorite pass time just be spilling their guts. That is just where my moral compass is, errant though it might be. I have no plans to "reform."

[ASA Vet]

If we could save the lives of men in our command by either physically or mentally torturing a bad guy, would we do it?

In my case, Yes, and then I'd have to resign as I'd violated the high standards required to be the leader.