re: #797 amir

True. It is the legal definition. In 1983, a Texas sheriff - James Parker - and several of his deputies were prosecuted and jailed for using waterboarding. The reason? It was considered torture. There were several precedents. Parker got 10 years in prison.

The fact that you - and many other - consider waterboarding as a necessary tool for intelligence agencies does not make torture non-torture. If you support the use of waterboarding, you support the use of torture - it’s that simple. And then the interesting discussions arise: is torture ever defendable? Does it even work? And does any potential gains outweigh the costs?