On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:59:33 -0700, rw wrote:

After WWII the US convicted Japanese soldiers of war crimes and
sentenced them to very harsh penalties for waterboarding. It's torture.

No, the US didn't convict anyone of "waterboarding," (only) and IAC, what the
Japanese did in that case, along with other acts that were unquestionably
"torture," was nothing like the waterboarding as done in SERE, to KSM, etc. You
can debate whether the waterboarding as done to KSM, etc. is torture or not, but
it simply is not the same as the acts of "torture," some using water, to which
you refer. For example, one of the acts in those cases involved forcing water
down the prisoner's throats or nostrils, to the point of severe distention, and
then literally jumping on the torso of the bloated, bound prisoner.

The "big" case that has been cited is United States of America v. Hideji
Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita and if you are truly
interested in the facts, I'd suggest reading the actual specifications, etc.,
rather than either Paul Begala's OR Limpdick's rehash of them.

IAC, these reporters, ala "Lab Rat" and Hitchens, that **** around with
waterboarding are both silly and meaningless as evidence as to whether
waterboarding constitutes "torture." As I've said before, depending on the
legal definition of "torture" one chooses to use, giving a Muslim a ham sandwich
could be torture (and theoretically, it could be legally torture that one would
be bound to commit - for example, if the Muslim were literally starving to
death, and only non-halal/haraam food was available, but the provider took any
pleasure in the Muslim's dilemma (a somewhat natural human reaction at a hostile
enemy), forcing him to eat the food would be torture, but failing to provide it
would likewise be a crime.

And as an aside, if one wishes to utilize the codified laws that _might_
indicate that waterboarding is "torture," (AFAIK, there are no "serious"
applicable international law(s) that specify specific acts - i.e.,
"waterboarding" - as "torture") then one must concede that Saddam unquestionably
had WMDs.

HTH,
R