Given that it happened, that would make your statement counter-factual.
No it doesn't.
It could well mean that that an error was made in 1947 (my view).
Waterboarding is not torture. When properly conducted, it is a harmless, coercive technique occasionally used in the most extreme circumstances to get terrorists, killers of American babies, to disclose information that is useful in preventing further attacks.
Wikipedia provides the following definition, which is probably a good one. "Torture is the intentional infliction of pain or suffering to a degree that is deemed unacceptable in a particular political or legal context." Waterboarding, of course, cannot be said to inflict "pain or suffering" to a significant degree, since it is not a painful procedure and any suffering is limited to a few seconds. The United Nations requires the "pain or suffering" to be "severe", which it is hard to argue waterboarding is. After all, we have put some, MANY, of our own soldiers through it during training. I seem to recall a newsman being subjected to it as part of a news story.
The reality is that it is one more example where the Left has blown something out of proportion. The application of the technique has been minimal, has been extremely effective, and there is no evidence of any death or permanent disability arising from the treatment. It is really hard to argue that Abu Ghraib, for example, was torture. Prisoner abuse? Sure.
It really isn't important that you think it is or I think it isn't. Smart people disagree on the subject. The question is whether it is a legitimate technique in the context in which it is used, generally the "ticking time bomb" scenario or something close to it.
If one is presented with the choice of allowing an innocent death or waterboarding a suspected terrorist, I cannot imagine there is a person here who would not make the right decision.
Are you telling me you wouldn't use waterboarding to save an innocent life? |
