Incidentally, why are policies like this never given a straightforward name. Like "The Thing that Lets us Waterboard Suspected Terrorists?" When will politicians understand that we already don't like them, so they might as well be honest?
Anyway.
"The U.S. government needs to use any and all means, short of organ failure or death, to interrogate terror suspects so that future acts of terrorism can be prevented."
I disagree with this statement. I'm not saying terrorists should get the same treatment as, say, your run-of-the-mill thief or drug dealer. When you threaten hundreds or thousands of innocent people you deserve to lose some rights.
But, this whole "waterboarding isn't torture" thing is a load of... rotten pumpkin. Smelly, rotten pumpkin.If the US is going to torture suspected terrorists, we should tell our allies that we are going to torture suspected terrorists.
Oh wait, we can't? Riiiight, the UN doesn't like that.
Specifically, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment says:
"Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."
I even highlighted it for you.
Even without the UN telling everyone to just stop torturing people already, "enhanced interrogation" seems pretty stupid. Most people I know, they'd probably admit to a crime they didn't commit if they thought they were going to drown otherwise.
Think of the Salem Witch Trials (anyone remember the Crucible?) and how many people were willing to say they'd been possessed if it meant they wouldn't be executed. Or the Spanish Inquisition, where people were brutally tortured until they confessed. Can you really trust information you have to beat out of someone?
If this whole history business isn't working for you, think of Batman. Batman beat the crud out of the Joker, and, in the end, he rescued Harvey Dent instead of Rachel.
Newsflash: if it doesn't work for Batman, it definitely won't work for puny non-Batman people.