Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[Bill Glasheen]

FWIW...

I'm willing to bet that waterboarding is highly ineffective if you are aware of what's being done. A reporter recently voluntarily subjected himself to the routine. He came through it with no lasting trauma.

A rose is a rose by any name. Labels aside, it works because it makes you THINK you are drowning. It evokes the most primal responses in the victim.

The biggest problem I see with it is that people will tell you whatever you want to hear just so you'll stop doing what you're doing. If your goal is to get a signed confession, well fine. But if your goal is to get someone to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I'm not so sure...

Here's an area where I trust John McCain. He's been there, done that. If you're butting your nose in other peoples' business because you believe you have a better way, you need to walk the talk.

If you want to do bad things to a sociopath warrior who shows no respect for you, your culture, and your country, well... call a spade a spade and get on with it. To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

\

I'm willing to bet you that a corporation that large has some pretty substantial barriers to sexual harassment. I've worked for Fortune 500 companies, Justin. Have you? I speak from personal experience. Have you had mandatory sensitivity training?

I've worked for several fortune 500 and 100 companies, and have never seen any sexual harassment training. I thought that was reserved for the mail room workers.

/lurk

I find that hard to believe. I've worked for several where the training was mandatory. I also have a sister who has been chief of personnel for several Fortune 500 companies.

These days (this century) it's financial suicide not to have such training in a large corporation. With the risk of litigation, companies just can't afford to be in the position of showing they don't care. Believe it or not, it's a perfectly rational business decision. Regardless of the motivation, it's there.

- Bill

Well it seems to be working out for the companies since they're still fortune 100/500. I would be insulted if someone forced me to take some course on how not to harass people. That's for idiots that have no home learnin'. I mean I would really throw a fit. Anywho, it has nothing to do with the torture and rape fun. Carry on.

[Bill Glasheen]

Believe me, I was insulted by the training. In fact I found the entire environment to be fairly oppressive - bordering on ridiculous.

It all started a few decades ago when sexual harassment was commonplace. A few high profile lawsuits later, the HR departments for almost all large employers reacted. Some say "overreacted." Next thing we know, Jerry Mackenzie wins a multimillion dollar settlement against Miller Brewing Company and Patricia Best for claiming he was fired for telling a joke he heard on a Seinfeld episode.

As you implied, most people who have been raised right understand The Golden Rule. It's a shame that some don't. It's even worse when the civil lawsuits start flying in BOTH directions.

<Sigh...>

- Bill

[Kuma-de]

Water Boarding:


(Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquidick)

or,

Beheading by Radical Terrorists? (not for the squeamish):

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/beheading1.jpg

All jokes aside, you tell me what is torture. One of the toughest Al Qu'eda operatives lasted about a minute and a half with water being poured down his throat with it sealed off with plastic; in a controlled environment. He then admitted his role in the first Twin Towers bombing and 9/11 several days later after sitting quietly reading the Koran.

Imagine the torture and terror going through the brains of those about to be beheaded? The screaming and gurgling sounds of the man writhing in pain as his head is sliced off on video by a half dozen religious zealots. Many will argue that the H2O Boarding lowers us to the terrorist's level.

No way, by any standards is the American or Coalition forces equal to the Taliban or Al Qu'eda trash!

[Kuma-de]

One of my students who served 3 very nasty tours in Iraq wrote this:

Wednesday, April 04, 2007


Take This You Liberal Pussies

It's a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org.

Are Corpsmen expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a
terrorist. Its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as "unlawful combatants." It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact. Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your situation-Marine: You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their
position as protection.

But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s
(Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you
think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest made of explosives.

Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room. You're already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad, which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So
you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque.

Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!!!

What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it? Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same. Marines end
up getting hurt or dead. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self-evident. If you are not a veteran, then at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for
longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes".

One of his team wrote this on his team wrote this on his MySpace blog where this article appeared:

Hey man, haven't talked to you in a while, but I deployed with 2/3 this year in Hadithah. In September I'm going back to Fallujah - on my fifth deployment - with who knows what infantry battalion. I can relate to most of this. Just trust me in believing it was all for a cause, and you've made history brother.

Semper Fi -

- Nate

Posted by Nate on Monday, April 16, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Before:



After:

[Bill Glasheen]

That's one way to get mosques (or places of worship from ANY religious denomination for that matter) back into the business of religion.

Wow, what a concept!

- Bill

[cxt]

VAl

"At what point does it become a pattern?"

Good question, I'd take the total number of troops in the field over a set period of time and comapare it to the number of PROVABLE incidents.
Should give you a pretty accurate picture as to what is hysterical fears and what is statistically a "pattern."

And in this case abuse of any sort---as horrible as indivudual acts might be---is a statistical blip.
Its enormously in the minority.

Sorry I don't follow the dictates of YOUR opinion as to what consitsts of a "conscience."

I find the widespread accpetance of tortures far worse than waterboarding by terrorists and those that support them to be far WORSE....."abhorant" actually.

The Geneva Conventions are meant to be BOTH "carrot" ie rewards for following their dictates and "stick" ie. punishments for failing to follow them.
IMO you either support the Geneva Conventions or you don't.

BTW, your not going to get very far argueing the Conventions vs themselves either...not in a actual debate.

(You might look up "grave breaches" and how they would addressed by the Conventions themselves.)

If you want to change behavior then you need both......there is NO incentive to change without punishement and/or reward....and with no incentive to change terrorist and those that support them will continue to do hidious things to innocent people.....YOUR condeming innocent men, women, and children to horrific deaths Val...have you no compassion for THIER suffering?

Kindness to the cruel is cruelity to the kind Val.

And McCain was "tortured"......please compare what was done to him with waterbording and try to tell me that they are the "same."

[cxt]

Styke

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I don't consider waterboardign torture because it (as far as I'm aware) because it does not invlove the infliction of pain.

We can play all sorts of word games with the meaning of weither its "mental" torture.

But once we go down that road...at that level what ISN'T mental torture?

[Valkenar]

VAl
And in this case abuse of any sort---as horrible as indivudual acts might be---is a statistical blip.
Its enormously in the minority.

Well what do you consider the substance of the pattern to me. I'm not looking at it as "female employees raped" I'm looking at it as "grievous crimes comitted by members of corporations operating in Iraq" Which includes things like blackwater, etc.

I find the widespread accpetance of tortures far worse than waterboarding by terrorists and those that support them to be far WORSE....."abhorant" actually.

Who accepts the actions of terrorists? Certainly I don't. If someone came on here saying that terrorists are justified in doing what they do, I'd be right with you in arguing the opposite. And yes, beheading is worse than water
boarding, of course it is. But torture is never justified, period. If you disagree fine. As far as I'm concerned it's no better than saying rape is justified sometimes. So we know where we stand and it's a fundamentally difference of opinion.

The Geneva Conventions are meant to be BOTH "carrot" ie rewards for following their dictates and "stick" ie. punishments for failing to follow them.
IMO you either support the Geneva Conventions or you don't.

Morality doesn't begin and end with the Geneva Convention. Whether it's meant to be carrot and stick or not doesn't really impact whether or not torture is moral. All the Geneva Convention does is add oathbreaking and logistical drawbacks to performing it.

and with no incentive to change terrorist and those that support them will continue to do hidious things to innocent people.....YOUR condeming innocent men, women, and children to horrific deaths Val...have you no compassion for THIER suffering?

That's some rather enormous hyperbole. To say that failing to torture terrorist is going to result in more terrorists torturing civilians, well that's so silly I find it hard to believe that you seriously think that.

Kindness to the cruel is cruelity to the kind Val.

No, it's not. I think that kind of absolutist, vindictive mindset is terribly unproductive. I'm sure you disagree. That's fine.

And McCain was "tortured"......please compare what was done to him with waterbording and try to tell me that they are the "same."

McCain was water boarded and calls water boarding torture.
Kuma-De:

If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes".

Seriously flawed concept. Trauma is a destructive. Having experienced trauma does not necessarily make one wiser, just different. It's entirely possible to come out of a traumatic experience with a warped perspective. That's part of why therapy exists. This is not to that all marine have a warped perspective, by any means. What I am trying to say here is that having had a traumatic experience does not qualify one to judge morality better than someone who hasn't. On a personaly level, I would never try to claim that I am better because of the things I've been through than people who haven't. If anything I would say my judgment is less clear and reasonable in areas where I have had bad experiences.

[cxt]

Val

Either way there are a couple of important distictions.

1-STILL a vastly small sample.

2-People doing it are caught, tried and punished---sure some criminals get away with it---just like they do in your hometown....does not make it statisically systemic.

Then its a matter of DEGREE Val--if waterboarding is far less worse than cutting off a persons head then why do you NOT devote MORE ire to THAT act?????

Seriously man, please direct me to the exact location of where you have spent more ink on the horrors of people having their heads cut off after being forced to beg reapeatedly for their very lives?
Where can I find your rants on dunking live people into vats of acid?
Rapeing little girls in front of their fathers to get them to talk?
Saddam CARD CARRYING PROFESSIONAL RAPE SQUADS?
Where can I find your expressions of disgust at any of that??????

Nope, I belive that torture can be justified---simple case of what is worse.
Is it more cruel to torture or is it more cruel to allow innocent people to die?
Depending on your POV, allowing innocent people to be blown apart in a murder bombing is much worse than inflicting serious but non-permenent pain on someone.

Should they have tortured the sick SOB that kidnapped, raped and buried that little girl alive?
Would it have been cruel to him to torture him to make him talk?
Or was it cruel to HER not do so?
Why does his right not to be caused physical pain take precedence over her right to life itself?

What is the ethical construct for denying life itself to the innocent in rather than cause pain to the evil????

It does if people are going to invoke the Conventions to bolster their opinions.
And the Conventions, penned by people with first hand grim experiences in the horror of war KNEW that you need BOTH a carrot and stick to effect change.

Nope, that is not what I said, I said that to effect change you need to BOTH punishments and rewards----failing to provide either creates incentives to keep doing wrong.
If you don't want to effect change ie keep people from REALLY torturing people you have to give them reasons NOT to do it...which as per the Conventions is punishements and rewards.
How else do you plan on stopping them????????

Then PLEASE explain it to me Val---how is kindness to the cruel not cruelity to the kind??????

Humanity has a right to protect itself from the murderous among us.
The murderous and cruel have no right to expect or demand the kindness and mercy they take plesure in denying to others.

Ah, dude they did ALOT more to McCain than just waterboarding---and now that you mention it--exactly what punishement was metted out to the people that tortured McCain??????

[IJ]

CXT: You keep comparing waterboarding favorably to beheadings. Really, who cares? Not one soul here has dared suggest equality there, or proposed less than full efforts to bring those responsible and their regimes down. I don't want to hear my country promoting itself with a new slogan "USA: less torturous than beheadings!" the next time we challenge rogue states at the UN and everyone has ammunition to fire back that we aren't so pure ourselves.... I don't want us to help RECRUIT any more al aqaeda by po'ing whole nations of muslims, because as I'm sure you've noticed, the more mainstream insurgency has caused a lot more suffering to iraq and to usa than several beheadings months to years ago.

I'm glad you don't consider waterboarding torture because you find it does not cause pain. Frequently, neither do heart attacks; they cause severely discomforting chest pressure without pain, on occasion. Perhaps we should just cause heart attacks as a pain free, torture free interrogation method? We could also change the name of that traditional misery to "chinese water nontorture" and gently sexually molest prisoners with strict sexual taboos so we can nontorture them into confession.

And you keep referring to carrot and stick, as if the Geneva conventions were written to keep terrorists in line. As if you're Caesar Milan and these terrorist dogs will sit and roll over and shake as soon as they hear that they'll be abused in American prisons and deprived of Geneva-conventional treatment. But wait--they already know! They view our mistreatment of their culture and peers as the reason they joined half the time!

CXT: I just don't get it. Perhaps you can elaborate on your approach to the conventions, perhaps providing your own link to a relevant source, loathe as you usually are to do so...

[cxt]

IJ

Because I'm rather sick of people conflating the term "torture"--which IMO should be reserved for serious infliction of bodily harm to any form of discomfort.

Your logic is flawed in that:

A-That such claims help them recruit more followers--the more so since many of them are from nations that use serious torture (up to and including torturing ones family members)

The major terrorists of our time have been pretty clear as to exactly why they hate us---and "torture" is not even on the list.

B-So if we treat a terrorist kindly--no matter what henious crimes they commit--that will provide an incentive for them to stop exactly how????????

So where do you draw the line IJ---is not being locked up cause for emotinal/mental pain?

Shooting people causes them pain.....maybe we should equip our forces with feather pillows to subdue murderous terrorist.

I have a "taboo" against murdering innocent childern, women and men just going about their daily lives......how about out foes start respecting OUR "taboos" and then we can respect THEIRS.
I humbly suggest that showing the upmost respect for the social norms and taboos of murderous relgious zelaots is not the way to convience them to mend their ways.

Sheesh.

Nope, I'm suggesting that if I KNEW that no matter what I did I would be well treated by my foes then it does not follow that I will curb my evil ways.....if anything it would probably inspire them to become even more violent.

Like rouge States care what we think........heck half of them are sitting on the UN Human Rights Commission for cats sake.

I'm "loath" to because I simple don't have the time to keep doing others peoples research for them.
Nor does it do any good against entreached bias.
I post the revlevent GC statues and people will do just what Val did above--claim that in THAT case the GC are not the final arbiter of ethics.

(BTW IJ in the past YOUR "argument by link" mode of discourse has proven demonstrable flawed--as many of the links you've posted to "prove" your various points on various topics don't actually say/mean what you present them as saying/,meaning. )

I'm still waiting for someone to lay out the ethical construct where not causing pain to evildoers is to be held in higher importance than the basic right to life for the innocent.

How does exactly does "pain" trump "life" itself?????

[Kuma-de]

Article by one of my favorite authors and columnists:


WHY IRAQ'S SO HARD
NUMBERS, RULES & WELL-MEANING FOOLS
Bush: May not act ruthlessly enough.




By RALPH PETERS

May 14, 2007 -- WE sent the world's best military. We spent an enormous amount of money. We "stayed the course." And now it's an open question as to whether we'll lose to savages or pull off a messy compromise success. What went wrong?

The strategic errors of the administration, the pernicious effect of the media and factional hatred within Iraq all played their part. Corruption and al Qaeda's remorseless bloodlust made everything worse. Poor leadership plagued Iraqis and Americans alike.

But the subject presidents, pundits and professors all avoid is what it would take to win militarily. Because the answer's ugly. We prefer to sidestep reality in favor of comfy fantasies that negotiations will persuade blood-drunk murderers to all just get along.

With the last-ditch troop surge in Baghdad, we're half-heartedly trying an approach we should have applied with everything we had in 2003. We no longer have the numbers to do it right - and our leaders, in and out of uniform, may not have the resolve to behave with the ruthlessness required to turn things around.

Even with the surge, our numbers in Baghdad will be "bare bones." We've finally moved our forces down to the neighborhoods, instead of obsessing about "force protection" and bunkering ourselves inside hermetic bases that severed us from Iraq's reality. We finally recognized the need for "precinct stations."

But what we still don't - and won't - have is a constant presence in the streets.

As one patrol returns, another should be heading out, with a third roaming the zone to cover the overlap. And that's the absolute minimum for a one-square-kilometer area.

The problem in this kind of conflict is that the initiative inherently lies with the terrorists and insurgents. We're looking for a limited number of targets: our enemies themselves. Their targets can be anything - a clinic, a school, a marketplace, a roadblock, a gas station or even a mosque. Anything they hit counts as a win.

Our best shot is to keep them on the run, to keep them off balance. But crippling their freedom of action requires that our troops seem to be everywhere at unexpected times. That takes raw numbers.

If, on the other hand, you let the terrorists and insurgents set the tempo, you lose both the support of the population and the war.

Executing such a policy also demands far better intelligence than we've produced in the past - our tactical intelligence has improved notably under the stress of war, but we still have a long way to go.

Above all, we have to maintain a strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands consistency, and we're the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.

At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: We overreact to media sensationalism (which our enemies exploit brilliantly); we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take prisoners knowing they'll be freed to kill more Americans - and the politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that "it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

That's the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn't a member of Congress.

Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it's losing that's immoral.

Consider just one of the many issues about which we're insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.

Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in a specific instance if it saved their buddies' lives.

The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too - surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.

Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it's immoral and because it's usually ineffective. But it's madness to declare that there can never be exceptions.

Forget the argument about the "ticking bomb" and the terrorist who might have information that could save numerous lives. Let's make it personal.

Whether you're left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: If torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?

If your answer is "no," you're not a moral paragon. You're an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell 'em, "Sorry, honey, but I'd rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It's a moral issue with me."

There are countless other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities required in war above the supreme immorality of losing. Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot's butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous bastards who shrieked, "Give peace a chance."

And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don't care.

We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings.

We've tried many things in Iraq. They've all failed. It's a shame we never really tried to fight.

Ralph Peters' most recent book is "Never Quit The Fight."

Source:http://www.nypost.com/seven/05142007/po ... htm?page=0

[Bill Glasheen]

In my opinion, the administration would have been served well had they read Sun Tzu's The Art of War. The right way to have conducted the campaign is there - with overwhelming force from the get-go. Many of the wrong ways - and how they play out - are also discussed.

History repeats itself.

However I'm not as pessimistic as Ralph Peters. I see significant and most likely lasting progress. Unfortunately we'll be in the region for a long time, whether we like it or not. Anyone who tells you otherwise (IMNSHO) is either a pandering politician, grossly naive, or has no interest in comprehending the enormity of the potential tragedy that awaits the region (and perhaps us).

History could repeat itself again. Pol Pot: Act II.

It really sux when you screw something up the first time around.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Then its a matter of DEGREE Val--if waterboarding is far less worse than cutting off a persons head then why do you NOT devote MORE ire to THAT act?????

Seriously man, please direct me to the exact location of where you have spent more ink on the horrors of people having their heads cut off after being forced to beg reapeatedly for their very lives?

Because nobody in their right mind thinks beheading is a good idea. I don't talk much about how the sky is blue, but I believe it with all my heart? What do you you want me to say? Beheading people in that matter is sick beyond description. That's what I think about it. But since everybody else believes pretty much the same thing what's to be gained by blathering about it? If you can point me to somewhere that people are saying how great beheading is then I'll go ahead and argue against it (note that I don't read Arabic)

Where can I find your expressions of disgust at any of that??????

The same place I can find your expressions acknowledging that gravity is 9m/s^2 or that Leonardi DaVinci was a pretty good artist or that the industrial revolution had a profound impact on American life. Bottom line: I don't waste my time preaching to the choir if I can help it.

Nope, I belive that torture can be justified---simple case of what is worse.
Is it more cruel to torture or is it more cruel to allow innocent people to die?
Depending on your POV, allowing innocent people to be blown apart in a murder bombing is much worse than inflicting serious but non-permenent pain on someone.

So you're more of a utilitarian than I am, that's fine. I don't think that "the ends justify the means" is universally true. In the same way that it's not right to kill one man so you can give his liver, kidneys, heart, etc. But the more important point is one I'll read later.

It does if people are going to invoke the Conventions to bolster their opinions.

Well the Geneva Convention is a good thing and for an number or reasons (e.g. diplomatic) I think we should try not to break it. But the Geneva Convention is not the basis of my argument.

Then PLEASE explain it to me Val---how is kindness to the cruel not cruelity to the kind??????

I disagree with your analysis that being kind to the cruel necessarily causes them to be cruel to the kind. In some cases, sure, it might, but it's a very one-sided approach that fails to capture the breadth of reality.

Ah, dude they did ALOT more to McCain than just waterboarding---and now that you mention it--

Yes they did. They also water boarded him, which he considered to be torture.

exactly what punishement was metted out to the people that tortured McCain??????

Totally irrelevant. Punishing his torturers would not change in any way whether he was tortured or not and whether water boarding is torture or not. It's a shame if justice was never served, but it doesn't affect this discussion in any way.

Kuma-De:

Whether you're left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: If torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?

If your answer is "no," you're not a moral paragon. You're an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell 'em, "Sorry, honey, but I'd rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It's a moral issue with me."

CXT:

What is the ethical construct for denying life itself to the innocent in rather than cause pain to the evil????

This hypothetical is fundamentally flawed, because reality is simply never, ever like that hypothetical situation. In reality, you never know that torturing person is going to have any positive outcome whatsoever. So you're not faced with the question "is it moral to torture a person to save 10,000 lives" you're faced with the question "is it moral to torture a person because there's some unknown chance you may prevent some unknown level of tragedy" Do you see the difference?

With hindsight, we might be able to think that it would've been good to torture someone, the same way we can think that it would've been good to murder Hitler at age 12. But in the moment, there isn't that certainty that you're preventing a tragedy. All you know is that you're going to harm someone.

CXT:
I don't believe that deterrence is a viable excuse for torture. If anything, I think torture makes the situation worse for us. It just breeds ill will, and nobody is really going to be deterred. It'll just be more reason to go the suicide-bomber route. I'm not talking about bribing people not to hurt us, but I don't think simply concentrating our vinegar more and more is going to help us catch these flies, either.