Waterboarding

[jamescfm]

.

[TPPDJT]

It's a waste of time, money, and manpower. There is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.

[Hrafn]

My opinion on torture in general is that it is justified if it helps obtain information that is important for winning the war/take out the terrorists/etc. and save lives. Preferably, it should not cause any permanent bodily damage. Is waterboarding the best method? I don't know. I'm also not convinced that torture (of any kind) is actually effective. So I don't have strong opinion either way.
Edit: On balance, maybe I am against torture after all.

I've never understood the logic in being opposed to torture on principle while having no problem with killing in war though. Pacifists are at least consistent.

However, torture as a punishment or just for fun, which I strongly suspect goes on in military prisons, is absolutely horrendous, and those who are found guilty of it deserve a taste of their own medicine. (Yes, I contradicted myself in the same sentence.)

[MichaelReilly]

I've never understood the logic in being opposed to torture on principle while having no problem with killing in war though. Pacifists are at least consistent.

If you have no problem with killing in war, it means by definition you're not a pacifist...

[Darkylightytwo]

WaterBoarding must be banned. I have general problem with all war and all killing in war.

But at the very least, one can recognized that Soldiers killing soldiers should never be illegal, that is war... And I see no ground for torture, no moral reason and no right justifications.

And terrorism is a very poor excuse for torture.
In General, international conventions on war recognized two categories of people, Fighters who take part in war and civilian, who do not take part in war and netheir are allowed to be tortured for information. I can also say that there are convention on children taking arms, child soldiers and I don't think it allow torture.
There is no third categories called terrorism, and the word terrorism has no recognized definition around the word, because of its political use.

And its not like we can confuse the two.
Soldiers must have uniforms and openly carry arms.
Civilians should not be armed.

Now I can understand that some groups do employ uniform or do not carry arms openly, but these could be accused of war crimes, that field is already covered, so what is the purpose of terrorism accusation, other to allow torture who is not allowed on a civilian or a prisonner of war.

[Hrafn]

I've never understood the logic in being opposed to torture on principle while having no problem with killing in war though. Pacifists are at least consistent.

If you have no problem with killing in war, it means by definition you're not a pacifist...

I didn't claim otherwise...

[MichaelReilly]

I've never understood the logic in being opposed to torture on principle while having no problem with killing in war though. Pacifists are at least consistent.

If you have no problem with killing in war, it means by definition you're not a pacifist...

I didn't claim otherwise...

I misread what you wrote, my bad.