It's easy to give in to the idea of torture as a solution especially in specially-crafted scenarios such as those presented in the debates the other day. We can certainly all envision a scenario where we might actually torture someone or condone such action. However, if you listen to the scenarios presented you realize that they are unplausible. When do we ever know every single snippet of information except what a signle individual in our custody knows?

That being said, I have to admit that I've often thought of issue. The argument presented by the two Generals is probably the best I've heard. I would think that our use of torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" (sounds like the fluff put in officer performance reports) really hurts our IO campaign. How can we argue that we are the moral side defending the rule of law when we manipulate it for our purposes?

Perhaps moving from a war to more of a law enforcement action, like Slapout suggested in another post, would eliminate this? Working from an LE has its issues but the rule on torture is fairly clear.