I must say, knowing you're a military man, I had hoped for more from you. I'm thoroughly disappointed. I had hoped we could come to agree on this, if not anything else.

Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
Torture: 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortra, from Latin tortus, past participle of torqure, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots

http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/torture
That's a good start. I'd also like to add that most definitions include non-physical pain, as in the second definition from your link: "Excruciating physical or mental pain".

1) Legal is your hot topic. Countries all different in what is legal or not at different periods of time. So saying it is not legal is a matter of what time you are referencing. It is not legal under Obama, but was legal under Truman or FDR is a matter of jurisdiction. Hence, if something was done legally under Bush, it should not be tried as illegal under Obama.
What was done legally under Bush should not be tried as illegal under Obama. That's fair.

Can you tell me what laws have changed with regards to torture since Obama took office?

2) immoral. I would submit that some "torture" is not "torture" at all in the minds of most people when contrasting torture methods of the past. I.e. the Vietnamese pulling fingernails, Saddam using batteries on prisoner's genitalia, and a whole load of other such things. Typically, I viewed torture to be anything that actually permanently alter's the bodies appearance or damages any of its functions. I do not think Water Boarding permanently harmed or disfigured those terrorists that were subject to it. Obama not releasing the effects of the Water Boarding, in its prevention of other terroritists plots, is therefore just as immoral for withholding the truth to the American public. If he wants transparentcy in terms of releasing our methods to the world, he should be just as transparent to what it accomplished.
"What it accomplished" should be irrelevant, since the ends never justify the means. But we can go there if you'd like. I've found two former Army interrogators who have said it doesn't work, and none of the photographs or memos that have been released have convincingly said otherwise.

Also, as I said to MacG, "not as bad as" is a poor heuristic in determining morality.

3) If you treat terror as a crime it is admissible only when the methods are presently illegal, if you treat it as civilian combatants, it is different. Again, we should see the results to see whether its intelligence was of value or not.
You're conflating two questions here: a) is it a crime? and b) does it work?

For a), the US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on Torture, both of which condemn torture and other inhumane treatment, regardless of the status of the enemy - whether combatants or noncombatants. The US cons***ution clearly states that the conventions to which we are signatories are binding on US citizens.

For b), no evidence so far has indicated that any useful, actionable intelligence was gained through torture that could not have been gained through traditional means of interrogation. Again, with the torture of KSM, he was waterboarded 183 times over the course of a month, after he had already been cooperating with interrogators.

4) which is why Obama should never have released the information in the first place.
Excuse me? That's absurd! Suppressing the truth about what happened, and how it was authorized, is not the way to gain the respect and trust of others. Don't shift the blame from those who committed the action to those who brought the action to light.

5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention...
"Not as bad as..." again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's never been the determining factor for determining the UCMJ or other guidelines for the behavior of US military and intelligence services.

6) really, do other regimes Water Board?
Yes. Yes they have. Waterboarding was developed by the Spanish inquisition and used by the Khmer Rouge and other regimes.

I mean when we invaded Saddam, did you not see and hear the stories of the types of torture he used? Do you see us doing the same as Iran when they captured the British Navy sailors and was parading them in their State run media for purpose of propoganda. I do not see this happening in the US. You need some real comparisons between the regimes.
"Not as bad as." The US has executed as war criminals people who have tortured using the methods authorized by the previous administration.

7) back to results and the legality during the time of the interviews
No. Point 7 is decidedly a moral argument, not a utilitarian or legal one: it disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval. Perhaps it should be combined with point 2.

and advanced interigations techniques
Not to go Godwin on you, but the Nazis developed the euphemism "enhanced interrogation" for torture. We executed at Nuremburg some who were guilty of verschaerfte Vernehmung.

The terrorists had no concern for humanity when they rammed two commercial jets into the Twin Towers, and the third into the Pentagon, not to mention the fourth that crashed and who knows where it was intended--White House?
Back to NABA (Not As Bad As). How long will others' evil actions be used to justify our own?

If the techniques were authorized in a legal manner, absolutely nothing.
A lawyer writes a memo saying that torture is legal (if it conforms to such-and-such limitations). The law itself hasn't changed.

If you want to change, change policy and quit looking at the past.
I agree. If you want the US to change, to overthrow over 200 years' tradition of not mistreating and torturing detainees, do it in the open. Formally withdraw from the UN and Geneva Conventions. Don't just decide that we can ignore them at our leisure.

It harms our own intelligence gathering when they have to fear litigation within the US from balancing it with doing their ***s with our real enemies.
I agree that low-level operatives should not fear prosecution for an illegal and immoral top-down order. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be those in authority who authorized the torture. (And, for the record, I am open to other plans of action besides prosecution, such as a South African-style Truth Commission)