What constitutes torture shouldn't be up for debate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
...'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
|
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Of course waterboarding is torture. It causes severe pain (unless you've had it done to you, you can't say it isn't "severe"), both physical and mental, and is intentionally inflicted to obtain information or to intimidate/coerce. It is torture. If you don't believe it is, ask yourself if police officers should be allowed to waterboard suspects. If you're anywhere near normal and haven't lost your very last connection with reality, you'll conclude that the police should not waterboard, therefore there's no reason the military or any other government or civilian individual or organization should be allowed to do it legally.
Torture is illegal. Torture is immoral. Torture cannot provide reliable results. Again, people who are fine with torture are people who don't understand torture.
And really, the "shit happens" take doesn't make any sense. Are you also fine with genocide? Rape? Child slavery? All of those other horrific things that are a "part of the range of what happens when humans war with each other"? "I'm fine with torture" really isn't even callous. It's quite literally indefensible.