Hollywood weenies. So politically correct when it doesn´t advance their agenda. It was a very well done movie. The violence was not glorified but part of the plot, and in fact, no more violent than what is routinely included in many tv shows. I was more offended by the gratuitous overuse of the f-bomb. What made the holly weenies mad was that the movie proved that we would never have gathered the information necessary to track down UBL without enhanced interrogation. If you want to call that torture, fine. It got the job done.

I saw the movie this weekend with a new lady friend. We boh concluded that more of the "torture" should be used and that we were not embarrased that our government used it.


Bring it I say.

The Hollywood and liberal reaction point out their inability to accept reality or debate a topic honestly.

There are two issues
A) Should a person or a nation have an interrogation policy? Guessing that 99% answer, "Of course!", the question moves to what is the acceptable range of actions permitted given a range of circumstances. There is a legitimate moral argument by those who believe there should be no physical or psychological coercion what-so-ever. Few agree with the argument, especially when potential harm to others is great.

B) Does enhanced interrogation or torture work? The answer is clearly "Yes with qualifications." Does it elicit only accurate answers? No. Does it elicit false confessions? Yes.

The left tries to begin the argument by denying reality and asserting that "Torture doesn´t work." They then move on to expand their definition to include many acts that a great majority would not define as torture and would employ some acts in the most extreme range if the risk of harm to love ones is great and imminent.