[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Today’s comment bait is brought to you by the Washington Post which says (for now at least):
In his book, titled “Decision Points,” Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was “Damn right” and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives, according to a someone close to Bush who has read the book.
The WaPo presented this as an example of it being a revelation. Personally I thought to myself “what else is new?” And the WAPO insinuates that “human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him. “ As for whether it is torture or not, I think you have to divide it between the legal question and the moral question, although you will see some interaction between the two. Morally, I would say that wherever the line between torture and tough interrogation is, waterboarding is very close to that line. I think it is on the right side of the line, as something unpleasant but not actually torturous. But I respect people who disagree. Still those who do disagree need to get off their high horse and recognize the issue is a little more subjective than they are generally pretending it is.
As for whether it is legally torture, well, here is the current wording of the U.S. Code: