[kenberg]

cherdano, on May 2 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 2 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

Case 1: A person has killed someone, maybe several someones. He is found guilty of doing so.

Case 2: A person has placed a bomb somewhere that will cause many deaths. You have the person in your custody and if you can get him to give you information such as the location of the bomb you can save many lives.

Argument: These two situations are different and the law should recognize the difference.

Practical example: I guess it was maybe two years ago that a plot to hijack several aircraft was successfully dealt with, I believe primarily by British Intelligence (I don't follow these things in detail but this is roughly right). Of course I don't know how they got their information but it would not surprise me if at least some of it came from sources (not necessarily us, not necessarily the Brits themselves) that used techniques not entirely approved of by some posters on this Forum. Should they have averted their eyes from such  information? Fruit of the poisoned root and all that?

We do wish (I wish and I believe most wish) to preserve a fundamental restraint in how we treat a fellow human being, or other living creature for that matter, even those who are engaged in efforts to harm us. We also wish to keep our planes from being hijacked and flown into buildings.

I really don't understand how people can see the resolution of this to be a simple matter.

Maybe it is not a simple matter, but it is a very clear matter to me. In the culture I come from (a European democracy), using torture is unthinkable. Giving up on this restraint would mean giving up one of the fundamentals "we" collectively believe in.
The fact that so many in the USA (not only among the current administration, but also many in the public debate on this issue) consider torture a reasonable option has been very disappointing for me.

As far as I remember, the English plot was uncovered by investigations by the British police within England. I very much doubt that torture was used at any point in the investigations.

Arend,

Is torture unthinkable within the European democratic culture? I believe that we do not have to go back so far in time to when it was not. I am not intending to pick on anyone here, but the French used it in their conflict with Algeria, did they not? More than panties on the head, and I think more than waterboarding. Am I misinformed? I am not, NOT, trying to dump on France or on Europe. I am asking. Has it changed that much? Is there a broad general consensus that torture of any sort, from panties on the head to electric wires, is off the table? The Spanish had a train blown up. They don't want another train blown up. Do they see this as a matter of normal police procedure? I don't know, I would like to know.


It's true that I sometimes thank my European friends for taking time out of their busy lives to list all of the things that are wrong with my country, but in my better moments I like to seriously explore our common ground. This is my intent here. I think it is important.

Ken

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on May 2 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

If torture is not for punishment, then it is correct to assert that the Eighth Amendment does not apply.

While this statement might be semantically correct, it actively detracts from the conversation at hand.

Let's parse the statements in question:

The 8th Ammendent states the following

Quote

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Moreover, I'll offer the following definition of "punishment" which I lifted directly from Wikipedia

Quote

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted, disobedient or morally wrong behavior.

Next, lets consider the "Ticking Bomb" scenario

Scalia's argument requires that we parse the chain of events as follows:

1. My goal in torturing a terrorist is to extract information about the location of a bomb.
2. I am not torturing him for placing the bomb, detonating the bomb, or some other "unwanted, disobedient, or morally wrong behavior"
3. Therefore, in the case, torturing is not punishment

I would argue the following:

1. My goal in torturing a terrorist is to hurt him because he is refusing to divulge the location of a bomb
2. The terrorist's refusal to grant me the information that I want is an "unwanted, disobedient, or morally wrong behavior".
3. Therefore, in this case, the punishment is torture...

The whole argument devolves into a debate about how one should frame/describe the act of torture. From my perspective, when something as terrible as torture is involved we shouldn't be jumping through sematic hoops trying to give ourselves carte blanche to do whatever the hell we feel like...

For what its worth, I do agree that one could construct cases in which torture would not fall afoul of the 8th ammendment. In theory, there might be a government agent who is a complete and utter sadist. He decides to round people up completely at random and torture them for kicks and giggles.

I would probably agree that this is not a violation of the 8th ammendment. However, I think that these types of discussions fall into the same category as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"... Someone probably cares about this, but it seems of limited practical utility...

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 27 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Quote

MARK MAZZETTI
NY Times
Sunday, April 27, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

So, the Justice Department is claiming that international law does not apply to the U.S., is that right? Isn't that the kind of claim all rogue states make, like North Korea claiming international waters don't apply to them?

Quote

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

Surely, there is inbreeding occuring at the Justice Department - otherwise, how do you get the same thinking? Let me ask Brian a question: You say intent is critical. But what if you torture Joe Blow, believing him a terrorist, then later find out that he's really only a shoe salesman from Cleveland - then what? Was it legal to torture the shoe salesman because there was no intent of humiliation or abuse?

Quote

Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.

“What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.

Is there really any other interpretation to make? In other words, it's legal if we say it's legal. Isn't that the bottom line?

And I bet there is no appeal process if you differ with that opinion....

To repeat as far as I know torture is against the law and has been for decades if not hundreds of years in the USA. I hope people in other countries do not think torture is legal in the USA. With three hundred million people I have no doubt someone may have gotten away with torture but I hope the perception is that it is extremely rare and even more extremely rare when carried about by our government.

As for the ticking bomb or buried child case I hope no country or parent ever must face such a horrible moral choice.


As for a common situation hundreds of thousands if not millions of boys and girls, men and women have been raped or assualted inside our prisons over the decades. This is not news. I grew up in Chicago and in the fifties and sixties the cops would tell us behave or you get sent to Cook County Jail where you will be raped. They still do this today. Yet we, the public have done nothing to stop this.


Perhaps any prison sentence may one day be considered a sentence of torture if not already. Yes, interpretation matters.

[Gerben42]

Quote

To repeat as far as I know torture is against the law and has been for decades if not hundreds of years in the USA. I hope people in other countries do not think torture is legal in the USA. With three hundred million people I have no doubt someone may have gotten away with torture but I hope the perception is that it is extremely rare and even more extremely rare when carried about by our government.

That may be the case but if that's so illegal why is the government torturing terror suspects for information? And getting away with it? Ah... it's illegal only when we say it's illegal, and in some places it's just necessary so we rename it to "interrogation" or just pretend it's not in the USA even if it's that territory.

Note that this is not anti-USA but they seem to be the main target. I am against ANY government that thinks waterboarding and similar things are ever appropriate interrogation techniques.

And if the French did so in the past, those who ordered it should be taken to the Hague together with the US responsibles. And if they stopped doing it, congratulations for coming to your senses.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on May 2 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

Quote

To repeat as far as I know torture is against the law and has been for decades if not hundreds of years in the USA. I hope people in other countries do not think torture is legal in the USA. With three hundred million people I have no doubt someone may have gotten away with torture but I hope the perception is that it is extremely rare and even more extremely rare when carried about by our government.

That may be the case but if that's so illegal why is the government torturing terror suspects for information? And getting away with it? Ah... it's illegal only when we say it's illegal, and in some places it's just necessary so we rename it to "interrogation" or just pretend it's not in the USA even if it's that territory.

Note that this is not anti-USA but they seem to be the main target. I am against ANY government that thinks waterboarding and similar things are ever appropriate interrogation techniques.

And if the French did so in the past, those who ordered it should be taken to the Hague together with the US responsibles. And if they stopped doing it, congratulations for coming to your senses.

Gerben this question has been answered many times here in the forum. You may hate the answer but all I can do is repeat it.


As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

The American public found out about it and now everyone running for President says stop it, stop it now.

Again my main point is there is more uproar over this issue than over thousands if not millions being raped and assaulted inside prisons. Two wrongs never make a right but please can we have some perspective on what horrible things are going on in the world today.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on May 2 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

Quote

To repeat as far as I know torture is against the law and has been for decades if not hundreds of years in the USA. I hope people in other countries do not think torture is legal in the USA. With three hundred million people I have no doubt someone may have gotten away with torture but I hope the perception is that it is extremely rare and even more extremely rare when carried about by our government.

That may be the case but if that's so illegal why is the government torturing terror suspects for information? And getting away with it? Ah... it's illegal only when we say it's illegal, and in some places it's just necessary so we rename it to "interrogation" or just pretend it's not in the USA even if it's that territory.

Note that this is not anti-USA but they seem to be the main target. I am against ANY government that thinks waterboarding and similar things are ever appropriate interrogation techniques.

And if the French did so in the past, those who ordered it should be taken to the Hague together with the US responsibles. And if they stopped doing it, congratulations for coming to your senses.

I want to repeat that I was not intending specific examination of the French. It is my understanding that not only was torture done by the French during the struggle with Algeria but that it was not unique to them. Many European countries have had to deal with various terrorist threats. The Spanish have had long standing problems with Basque separatists (the Catalan issue is more settled I think?), the Germans had problems with the Red whatevers, and so on. Many of these countries have substantial Islamic populations, many of them in jail (more than have the prison population of France is Muslim, yes?). Is it the case that across Europe there is great consensus that these problems are all to be dealt with as police matters, bringing everyone before a magistrate, giving them a lawyer, making sure that they are properly treated and so on? I am sorry to be so badly informed, but I am. Help me out here.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Is it the case that across Europe there is great consensus that these problems are all to be dealt with as police matters, bringing everyone before a magistrate, giving them a lawyer, making sure that they are properly treated and so on? I am sorry to be so badly informed, but I am. Help me out here.

Sorry but how else would you want to treat them? It's not the middle ages anymore.

Recently in Germany there were two guys who put a bomb on a train as a terrorist attack, but somehow it didn't work. Police matter.

Same with the "Rote Armee Fraktion", a terrorist organisation of some decades ago. The members of the group have been put on trial. Recently there was news about them because one of them had spent several decades in prison and was released.

There is a lot of horror in the world but those who represent the law have to take care that they make sure that they do not break the law themselves.

Around here the image of American law enforcement isn't that positive, and stories of torture from Abu Grahib or Gitmo, trigger happy police officers, secret prisoner transportation over European airspace on a "don't need to know" basis, innocent people detained at the US border for no reason etc. are NOT helping. I know that these are probably not the rule, but that's what's in the news here.

[cherdano]

In the hot days of the RAF, Germany as a nation certainly overreacted to the terrorist threat. Some people were erroneously put up on "Wanted"-ads for a decade by pure acquaintance with some terrorists. The mayor of Stuttgart drew a lot of fire for *gasp* allowing deceased RAF members to be buried in one of the cities major funerals. The chancellor would have resigned if the rescue attempt of the "Landshut" (a hijacked airplane) had ended deadly. Etc.
But I don't know of a single public figure who would have argued for using torture to prevent further terrorist attacks.

There is a lot of common ground between the US and Europe, but if you want to find it with regards to the stand on torture, then you should look at the agreement between the overwhelming majority of Europe and the side among the American public that condemns torture under any circumstance.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on May 2 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

Quote

Is it the case that across Europe there is great consensus that these problems are all to be dealt with as police matters, bringing everyone before a magistrate, giving them a lawyer, making sure that they are properly treated and so on? I am sorry to be so badly informed, but I am. Help me out here.

Sorry but how else would you want to treat them? It's not the middle ages anymore.

Recently in Germany there were two guys who put a bomb on a train as a terrorist attack, but somehow it didn't work. Police matter.

Same with the "Rote Armee Fraktion", a terrorist organisation of some decades ago. The members of the group have been put on trial. Recently there was news about them because one of them had spent several decades in prison and was released.

There is a lot of horror in the world but those who represent the law have to take care that they make sure that they do not break the law themselves.

Around here the image of American law enforcement isn't that positive, and stories of torture from Abu Grahib or Gitmo, trigger happy police officers, secret prisoner transportation over European airspace on a "don't need to know" basis, innocent people detained at the US border for no reason etc. are NOT helping. I know that these are probably not the rule, but that's what's in the news here.

So just to be clear, you are saying that every country in the EU treats suspected terrorism as a matter for the regular police force, with the suspected terrorist given all of the same rights as a person suspected of some other serious crime. Right? I am not contradicting you, I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying. I fully realize the US has a substantial problem in how we are regarded by the rest of the world. I believe there is a great deal to be said in favor of us working from the same page as Europe. I just want to be sure I understand whether the view you express, or that I understand you to express, is actually the European view as it is in fact practiced. Times change, of course, but I imagine you agree that there is no need to go back to the Middle Ages, or anywhere near it, to find practices in Europe to the contrary.

[Winstonm]

Quote

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 2 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Quote

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

Ok, we disgree. You basically say everyone knew waterboarding was torture and illegal and everyone involved in the decision who said it ok and everyone who did it should go to jail. Congress failed to impeach anyone involved and those who approved this so they are equally guilty. At some point you are putting just about everyone in jail. I do mean hundreds and hundreds of people including Congress who failed to bring these people to justice.

I have not even mentioned the American voting public who kept re electing these folks who would not bring impeachment.

I thought waterboarding was a honest interpretation of what is legal, and do not think all of these people should face criminal prosecution. Throw them out with an election, no problem, make this waterboarding decision a criminal prosecution, no.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 2 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Quote

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

Ok, we disgree. You basically say everyone knew waterboarding was torture and illegal and everyone involved in the decision who said it ok and everyone who did it should go to jail. Congress failed to impeach everyone involved and those who approved this so they are equally guilty. At some point you are putting just about everyone in jail. I do mean hundreds and hundreds of people including Congress who failed to bring these people to justice.

I have not even mentioned the American voting public who kept re electing these folks who would not bring impeachment.

I believe if there was illegal behavior those responsible should be held to the rule of law - the law would have to wave punishment due to mitigating circumstances - you wouldn't pardon yourself.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 2 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

mike777, on May 2 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Quote

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

Ok, we disgree. You basically say everyone knew waterboarding was torture and illegal and everyone involved in the decision who said it ok and everyone who did it should go to jail. Congress failed to impeach everyone involved and those who approved this so they are equally guilty. At some point you are putting just about everyone in jail. I do mean hundreds and hundreds of people including Congress who failed to bring these people to justice.

I have not even mentioned the American voting public who kept re electing these folks who would not bring impeachment.

I believe if there was illegal behavior those responsible should be held to the rule of law - the law would have to wave punishment due to mitigating circumstances - you wouldn't pardon yourself.

I repeat I think this issue is much more cloudy and less clear when it comes to a criminal trial but I write more below even when the case is more clear, unlike here.


If nothing else when it this come up in the future and I promise stuff like this will come up time and time again in your lifetime you will not be shocked that no one or almost no one is impeached and no one or almost no one goes to jail. You will not see mass war crimes impeachments. You may see one person or two tried for murder or a war crime but nothing involving this many people as in your example.




Just look at Germany or even more so Japan and the war crime trials. Very very few were brought to trial when thousands if not tens of thousands could have by the rule of law. Look at Korea, Vietnam or you pick any war by any country.

[Al_U_Card]

Invaders are only liberators until they are defeated.

[kenberg]

Just to get a little input on how terrorism is dealt with in Europe, we can find the following article in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...ed=networkfront

What I get out of this article is that definitely MI5 does not torture British citizens. They have them arrested in Pakistan, they question them there, and then they leave the room while the Pakistanis torture them, and then they question them again. This goes on for a year or so. All removal of fingernails is definitely done by the Pakistanis, not MI5. MI5 is opposed to torture.

At the least, this may cause us to look skeptically at the assertion that the plot to hijack planes was intercepted simply by standard police methods.

I am really not in favor of torturing anyone. I am in favor of getting information from terrorists. We are in desperate need of thinking through what we should and should not do. It seems at least possible to me that the current portrait of America as a bunch of torture hungry nuts and Europe as a bunch of ever so sweet souls who would never ever do such a thing may be a distortion of the truth.

[mike777]

kenberg, on May 2 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

Just to get a  little input on how terrorism is dealt with in Europe, we can find the following article in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...ed=networkfront

What I get out of this article is that definitely MI5 does not torture British citizens. They have them arrested in Pakistan, they question them there, and then they leave the room while the Pakistanis torture them, and then they question them again. This goes on for a year or so. All removal of fingernails is definitely done by the Pakistanis, not MI5. MI5 is opposed to torture.

At the least, this may cause us to look skeptically at the assertion that the plot to hijack planes was intercepted simply by standard police methods.

I am really not in favor of torturing anyone. I am in favor of getting information from terrorists. We are in desperate need of thinking through what we should and should not do. It seems at least possible to me that the current portrait of America as a bunch of torture hungry nuts and Europe as a bunch of ever so sweet souls who would never ever do such a thing may be a distortion of the truth.

My guess is that even in Pakistan torture is illegal even the torture of the British (who we love and respect...see Ringo).

We can only hope the UN does something against Pakistan if true and the people of Pakistan stop this practice of torture.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on May 2 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

I'm roughly in agreement with you here, and with the post of brothgar as well. However your first two sentences could be construed as "We are so glad you can help us with this information you obtained through torture. Of course we cannot reciprocate because we operate on a higher moral plane than you." It's a little off-putting, but I can live with it. I suspect we will have to live with worse things before this is over.

No doubt we will, but it was not my intention to imply the meaning you attribute to my comments. That kind of assertion by someone using information obtained through torture is just plain silly.

What I meant to say was that, given we have information the use of which will save lives, failure to use it, whatever the source, is just plain stupid. I did not mean that we should condone in any way the use of torture to obtain such information. A nation that did so should, imo, be told (verbally and through action) that they haved moved far lower on our "friends list" and are in danger of falling off the bottom of it.

Quote

Btw, I think Heinlein at his best (eg The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was very good but he got a little batty in his later years (eg Methuselah's Children). Emotionally I accept his general views, practically I would take him with several grains of salt. It was long enough ago when I read his stories, roughly when they came out,  that I am not prepared to defend these comments.

Certainly some of Heinlein's writings were, okay, "a little batty". He said so himself. But your timing is off: "Moon" was published in 1966, Methuselah's Children in 1941. Personally, I think (and I think Heinlein agreed) that the best example of "battiness" in his writings was I Will Fear No Evil which was published in 1970, and was, I believe, written while Heinlein was seriously ill.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on May 3 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 2 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

I'm roughly in agreement with you here, and with the post of brothgar as well. However your first two sentences could be construed as "We are so glad you can help us with this information you obtained through torture. Of course we cannot reciprocate because we operate on a higher moral plane than you." It's a little off-putting, but I can live with it. I suspect we will have to live with worse things before this is over.

No doubt we will, but it was not my intention to imply the meaning you attribute to my comments. That kind of assertion by someone using information obtained through torture is just plain silly.

What I meant to say was that, given we have information the use of which will save lives, failure to use it, whatever the source, is just plain stupid. I did not mean that we should condone in any way the use of torture to obtain such information. A nation that did so should, imo, be told (verbally and through action) that they haved moved far lower on our "friends list" and are in danger of falling off the bottom of it.

Quote

Btw, I think Heinlein at his best (eg The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was very good but he got a little batty in his later years (eg Methuselah's Children). Emotionally I accept his general views, practically I would take him with several grains of salt. It was long enough ago when I read his stories, roughly when they came out,  that I am not prepared to defend these comments.

Certainly some of Heinlein's writings were, okay, "a little batty". He said so himself. But your timing is off: "Moon" was published in 1966, Methuselah's Children in 1941. Personally, I think (and I think Heinlein agreed) that the best example of "battiness" in his writings was I Will Fear No Evil which was published in 1970, and was, I believe, written while Heinlein was seriously ill.

Thanks for the Heinlein correction. As I said, it has been a while. Memory fades.


I understood your meaning about using results from other who may have used torture to obtain them. Electronic communication is often a bit iffy but I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. My thinkg was more along the 'slippery slope" lines illustrated by the Guardian article I mentioned above. There we have MI5 not torturing anyone. They just come in to the room before the torture and after the torture and ask questions. Then they leave the room and the torture resumes. I would also want to leave the room, probably to go puke somewhere, but I don't think I could convince myself that I was not engaging in torture. It's different than what you were discussing, but it is on the same slope.

I realize there have been international conventions defining torture and very possibly we should just say we adhere to their rules and that's that. Not the worst idea in the world. But there are a couple of things that come to mind. On the one side, if someone can escape responsibility by simply leaving the room as the fingernails aer extracted, maybe things need to be sharpened up a bit. On the other end, I am troubled by the thought, if correct, that placing panties on someone's head and extracting their fingernails are treated in the same way. We do need information from captured terrorists. We need to set limits on our actions but treating them with great respect for their sensitivities may be more than required. At any rate, to quote your trooper, I could sleep at night.

This is difficult for many reasons, one of them being that intelligence agencies of course don't advertise their activities. It took me fifteen minutes or so to find the Guardian article on the Internet. Given their intention of secrecy this means to me that the actual involvement of intelligence agencies, ours and the Europeans, in torture is apt to be much more substantial. I have no faith in the argument that information obtained in that manner is never of any use. It is done because those doing it believe the information is of use, and they are very likely to be right. So we have a real tiger by the tail. We must set some limits, we must think through what they should be, and we must accept what the consequences will be.

[mycroft]

I have an interesting idea over waterboarding:

Anyone who says it isn't torture should be allowed to prove it. We'll just waterboard them for 5 minutes or until they tell us what we want to know (the phrase "waterboarding is torture").

If it's just an "enhanced interrogation technique", they should all be able to resist it and not tell a deliberate untruth for 5 minutes, right?

[TimG]

mycroft, on May 5 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

I have an interesting idea over waterboarding:

Anyone who says it isn't torture should be allowed to prove it. We'll just waterboard them for 5 minutes or until they tell us what we want to know (the phrase "waterboarding is torture").

If it's just an "enhanced interrogation technique", they should all be able to resist it and not tell a deliberate untruth for 5 minutes, right?

If this were a true test, and they used me as the subject, I'm sure many enhanced (and unenhanced) interrogation techniques, would quickly become torture.