Originally Posted by raytri

I wouldn't say dead wrong. I'm opposed to its use in almost all circumstances. Just because I can see *very* extreme situations where it might be justified doesn't mean I'd shed any tears if we banned the procedure.



That would assume the administration actually had a definitive policy on it. All we know for sure is that it was only used three times, in exigent circumstances. We don't know that it was limited to those three by policy. And policy limits are changeable, nowhere near as strong as statutory limits.

And I strongly disagreed with the administration's refusal to explain its policy.



I don't think it helps protect civil liberties and our moral standing in the world if we don't question what our government does in our name. There's a tradeoff there, between disclosing tactics and being accountable to one's citizens. Saying "it will help terrorists" shouldn't automatically trump being accountable -- at least not in a functioning democracy.

And letting terrorists know we'll waterboard them if we have to hardly constitutes a major revelation. It's a well-known technique. It's not like AQ is unfamiliar with torture techniques: if they're training people to resist, they'll cover the bases.