Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
Well, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 technically squashes that argument. It states all un-unifirmed combatants, insurgents, etc. are protected under the Geneva convention, which falls under the Treaty portion of the Costitution's executive powers. I disagree with it in principle, but it is what it is.
http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html
My question is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work. |
Well, then here is what I would say (which is what I believe you're saying). We should air on the side of caution, and regard waterboarding as torture. So, as torture, it (and other practices), should not be used under normal circumstances. If there is an imminent threat to our country, then it seems reasonable to violate an enemy combatant's liberties for the protection of our people.