Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
Actually that was a really intersting question. Like if they would support Musharaf's control, or allow free elections which could be bad for the US.
I'm not sure that was the issue, PG. America already supports Musharraf. America controls Bhutto, too. Consider her education:

"After completing her early education in Pakistan, she pursued her higher education in the United States. From 1969 to 1973 she attended Radcliffe College, and then Harvard University, where she obtained a B.A. degree cum laude in comparative government.[4] She was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa.[3] The next phase of her education took place in the United Kingdom. Between 1973 and 1977 Bhutto studied Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. She completed a course in International Law and Diplomacy while at Oxford.[5] In December 1976 she was elected president of the Oxford Union, becoming the first Asian woman to head the prestigious debating society."

No matter what happens in this supposed showdown, I don't think America will allow control of the region to pass to an unfriendly power. There will be no "free" elections, just as there aren't free elections in America.

The original question, however, was about the use of torture ("human rights" versus "security" are the code words for this). The question perpetuates the false notion that torture works and is therefore useful for "national security." Torture does not work, and should not be allowed, whatever euphemistic prize is dangled before the public ("security").