Unlike 90 percent of bloggers and pundits who have spent the past couple of weeks expressing outrage at the "torture" memos, I actually took the time to read them. They're not exactly fun reading, so I understand why people would be reticent. However, if you're going to decry the "torture" that they approved, you should be obligated to read the things.

If you just take the time to read the first memo, written by now-9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, it becomes really obvious that these aren't "torture" memos at all. They're "anti-torture" memos. The Office of Legal Counsel is well aware that torture is illegal and their legal analysis attempts to draw a line for the CIA that keeps them from committing torture. The CIA was definitely not given a free pass to do whatever they wanted.

While I acknowledge that the techniques described in the memos aren't pleasant, and would be illegal if done to a criminal defendant here in the United States, I don't think they amount to torture. In fact, much of what is described sounds more like a form of college fraternity hazing than it does torture.

Blame-America-Firsters claim that all of these enhanced interrogation techniques are torture and that torture never works. Except that, according to former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss, Gen. Michael Hayden, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and current CIA Director Leon Panneta, these techniques did work. Therefore, they obviously weren't torture.

But don't try to point that out; it will make BDS sufferers' heads explode.

According to the current standards when it comes to how far the government should be able to go to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, I guess I'm officially "pro-torture."

And, truth be told, from a public policy standpoint, I am part of a substantial majority of Americans who believe that there may be rare situations (ticking bomb scenario) when even torture (note the lack of quotes) may be acceptable -- providing you know it would work.

Is that the Christian position to take? No. But this is one of those situations where I gladly join the country's left-wing to state that this is not a Christian government. A Christian theocracy wouldn't have a military. It wouldn't have a police force. A "Christian" government wouldn't last long because its duty would be to turn the other cheek and it would be quickly destroyed.

A government's first duty is to defend its citizens. If that means some terrorist doesn't get to sleep for a few nights, gets slapped, thrown against a false wall and water poured on him in an effort to stop a nuclear bomb from going off, then so be it.

Which is why President Barack Obama's assertion in Wednesday's press conference that we could've gotten information from Khalid Sheik Muhammed in some other fashion is so unbelievable. Obama has zero proof that this is true. Zero.  The rough interrogation techniques were only used after all of the "good cop" efforts had proved futile.

I don't think Obama is serious about defending the United States from terrorism. It's not just the release of these memos which tell al Qaeda exactly how far we can go (and we won't be going even that far for at least the next four years). It's also Obama's decision in the upcoming days to release photos used as evidence against U.S. soldiers for abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The photos release will only inflame passions and needlessly endanger our troops and other Americans traveling abroad. Then there's the plan to release al Qaeda-trained terrorists into the United States.

I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.

Should the Taliban gain access to Pakistan's nukes and hand one or more of them over to al Qaeda to be detonated somewhere in the United States, Obama's pride that we don't "torture" will be scant solace for hundreds of thousands or millions of dead Americans.

There have been a few decent discussions online regarding this issue. Surprisingly, one of them is between Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart. The video is in three parts, and while Stewart can be infuriatingly dense, the key point of the debate comes late in the second video where May finally gets Stewart to realize that the logical conclusion of his position is that terrorists can only be asked name, rank and serial number.

I also encourage readers to check out today's column by Charles Krauthammer and this Federalist Society-sponsored debate.