Back Talk

It must be a sign of the times. During WWII, news people were concerned with winning the war, not the comfort of prisoners. Nowadays, editorial board members - a cadre of over-indulged, products of our liberal journalism schools plant their fat well-fed bottoms around a conference table and fret about the welfare of terrorists – avowed killers of Americans. They have more concern over the humane treatment of Islamo-Nazis than for American fighting men. It is easy to take the high road when in one’s comfortable surroundings and feeling he has no stake in the fight against terrorism which seems to be the case nowadays with the anti-war, pacifist bent of newspapers. Somebody needs to remind them that we're at war, that the enemy is killing our boys, and that we should be more concerned with gaining intelligence that would save lives. Of course this would likely fall on deaf ears because their professors have told them that war is bad. These self-righteous prisoner’s rights advocates are unfazed by the hypothetical question: What if thousands of innocent lives could be saved by waterboarding one terrorist? What about 100 saved? How about 10? How many American lives are worth scaring one terrorist into thinking he is drowning? The case of terrorist leader Khaled Sheikh Mohammed also leaves them unfazed. He masterminded the September 11th attacks, and waterboarding convinced him to reveal al-Qaida's complete organization list which clearly saved lives. In my own mind, I know what is and what is not torture. Torture is permanent physical injury to a prisoner of war. Embarrassing a prisoner, humiliating him, depriving him of sleep, withholding his holy book, questioning his manhood, or making him subservient to women is not torture and neither is waterboarding. Even if it is mental torture; so what?