Torture, it's not right, but...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/donald-rumsfeld-harsh-interrogations_n_820118.html
This article is about Donald Rumsfeld making some statements in preparation for his book release.  The statements revolve around his being "suprised and troubled" by some of the "harsh interrogation" methods used, but he believes it saved lives.  The article is short, concise, and lacks any sort of opinion within the text or even interpretation of the article, which I must say is a rarity on the Huffington Post, as they're a pretty outspoken liberal bunch.  

I've never been certain where I stand on the issue of torture.  I mean on an idealogical level I know exactly where I stand, and that's firmly against it, on a moral/idealogical level it's absolutely abhorrent.  The problem with this is, the world doesn't work that way, there are threats and dangers and some information can only gotten through people and then only through coercion.  While I may be willing to risk my personal safety rather than torture people--I would rather be tortured myself than submit another human being to that--it's not about me.  The choice that has to be made by those in charge of this thing is between their own morals and the safety and security of three hundred million people.  Honestly I'm not sure if I could make that choice, it seems selfish in that case to NOT torture the guy, the pain of one man weighed against the lives of millions?  But then, if we do go that route, that "necessary evil" as some people have called it, we start becoming the monsters they decry us as being in the first place.

Back in 2011, right after the World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden released a statement to the effect of "I will scare them so badly they willingly sacrifice every liberty and freedom they have, and every moral highground they claim for safety."  Yes that's paraphrased, I can't remember exactly what he said, but the fact remains that between our torturing of prisoners who are denied any rights, trials, and in many cases so much as a lawyer, and our curtailing of our own freedoms here at home, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, ect, we have proven ourselves to be incredibly easy to frighten.  We as a society have become afraid of our own shadows in a sense, we are terrified for our own security and will do everything we can to maintain it and in doing so have given Bin Laden the only victory he claimed to seek.  And yet who are we to risk the lives of our fellow citizens?  When taking the moral highground is selfish, and defending our bretheren requires evils to be done, which then shall we then choose?  I would like to say I'd stick with the moral highground, but any man who truely cares for the people around him would probably take the evil upon himself to save them.  I don't like it, and I wish it weren't so, but it seems more and more to be the truth to me.  If you're the kind of person that believes in Heaven and Hell this is literally a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," with no easy solution.