re: #795 amir

Once you ascertain that it is torture nobody is going to allow it. No elected official, that’s for sure.

Definitely possible. But that does not mean that it is not torture, and defining it as something else just to avoid the political implications is newspeak.

In fact, If elected officials - not to mention their electorate - have a problem with torture that is fully understandable. Torture, defined in U.S. law as ” an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control”, is in clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 5.

The American legal definition includes “the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality”, and “the threat of imminent death” (18 U.S.C. § 2340). Using a method that gives subjects the feeling of drowning definitely falls under the definition.

Whether U.S. laws applies in the relevant cases is of course disputable, but the definition of torture does apply. In regards to waterboarding, Charles keeps to the definition of torture, and then argues that it can be acceptable in very exceptional cases. While I disagree with his conclusion that torture may be acceptable in very exceptional cases, I understand his reasoning - and I can certainly see the motivation for using torture in such cases. I fear - however - that the motive of revenge can easily come into play.

I appreciate Charles’ honesty, and the fact that he does not resort to newspeak.