MARKS: The kinds of enemies we're fighting have no sense of right or wrong. They will go to any depths to achieve their ends.
FOREMAN: Do we have to go with them?
MARKS: We don't need to go with them. We need to preclude them from going there. And that might include some use of torture in order to prevent it.
If you could save the life of a soldier, rescue the hostage children; stop the next terrorist bomb by torturing a prisoner for information, would you do it? I love how some horrible scenario is set up and then they ask: "would you torture to avoid this situation?" Most of us would not torture if the situation did not directly affect us or our loved ones. Put the question just the right way and anyone would say "yes, I would torture the hell out of someone." This is just more dishonest rhetoric to try to make Republicans look worse than Democrats. Of course any liberal would say no to one of these propositions. They lie without blinking an eye. If, on the other hand, they are being truthful--they would not go to the extreme even to save a family member--then God help us all. I would not want them running my country. The real question should be: "would you torture if it was not absolutely necessary?" We fly over real high and act like we know what is going on and we really do not know shit. There is intellectual blogging and saying what you would do and what you would not do. And then there is real life, where your actions could save hundreds or thousands of lives. If my neighbor is dragged out and tortured for not supporting the president, which is what liberals would have us believe is going on, I will be the first one to join the resistance. However, if I am ever in harms way, I hope Major General Marks is there to get me out.
