the third one ok… that is a secondary argument

again… *sigh* you need to define torture

Say if it works – i dont know if it does, (iv read stuff that says that it both does and does not) which probably means it has a limited success rate. so where does one draw the line of ‘torture’… being kept in a cramp dark cell? having to wear an orange jump suit… not getting gin seng tea chilled over 3 ice cubes… being beaten and raped by US prison officers/ soldiers… being photographed and paraded over world media… where is the line? My line would be drawn where there is as little mental scarring as possible and no permanent physical damage. i.e. obviously a tough decision.
But if waterboarding saves successfully attains life saving intelegence, then it should continue…

It’s illegal under US and International law, and isn’t contingent on time, place, or date.

It opens up US citizens and soldiers to the same treatment under the rubric of “imminent danger.”

Torture as defined by the Spanish Inquisition should be good enough for the whole planet.

And legality in any nation or convention is clearly besides the point. It is inhumane. It does equal or greater harm to the torturer as to the tortured. And there is no standard by any measure in any nation, ruled by any tyrant, under which it is not just plain wrong.

[Mod Note; Comment edited by Moderator. Please do not insult other commenters. Thank you.]

Waterboarding is very very very unlikely to cause death. If it is regulated ie overseen properly it is almost impossible to cause death. Any recorded deaths were probably deliberate suffocation.

SO GO FOR IT: PROTEST AGAINST SAVING AMERICAN LIVES. not.