Why Aggressive Tactics Are Needed

Torture is morally wrong. However, let's look at the principle of lesser evils. If you torture individuals (Tenet, the ex-CIA guy, believes it works 70-80% of the time), you prevent future terrorist attacks from occurring. You prevent attacks, and then you save lives. It work with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who wanted to bomb the Sears Tower, and I work next to it right now). Let's also analzye history. In 1979, there was the Shah of Iran (pro-American), and Jimmy Carter was all about human rights. Yes, the Shah was evil, and it was morally wrong to have this guy in. However, Carter encouraged Khomeini to enter (and kicked out Shah), and as a result, Iran is all radicalized with Shiite surrogates killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Lebanon, and other places. Aggressive tactics work; wiretapping prevented those Pakistani Brits from using their IPODS to blow up Americans two years back. Yes, these tactics may be morally wrong, but at the same time, America needs to protect itself and civilans around the world. Iraq may have been wrong to invade, but Bush is right about aggressive tactics. Plus, look at any Arab torture cell, and it's worse off than here. I mean, a girl gets lashed in Saudi Arabia for being with another man (it wasn't her fault...which happened earlier year). And people don't get upset at that, as we do at Bush? You get lashed if you drink beer and get caught in UAE or other Muslim countries (because of Sharia law). Human rights violations in UAE against Indians & Pakistani's. But no one complains about that?

Andrew McCarthy from National Review on our torture cellsIt is also among the most humane, complete with halal meals, a bursting library, lush recreation facilities, communal prayer breaks and even white-gloved U.S. soldiers - Muslims only, please - delivering to each detainee a Koran (U.S. government-issued, even though the inmates believe it commands them to kill Americans)."