To include most of the political class in this country.

Umm, not really...most of the political class in this country have never supported torture simply because of 9/11...

We will then make a definitive determination of efficacy, won't we?

Indeed we will...

To include most of the political class in this country. Not they many of them possess either the integrity or honesty to admit it.

"...we have no proof that it provided any important time-sensitive info and/or saved any lives..."

The current DNI would disagree with you. I guess that's why the Pres needs to de-classify and release all of the relevant memos. We will then make a definitive determination of efficacy, won't we?

If "torture" (not torture) provides time-sensitive info when other methods can't, I say strap 'em in and wet 'em down.

Even if you have deluded yourself into thinking that waterboarding is not torture, we have no proof that it provided any important time-sensitive info and/or saved any lives...

Maybe that's why there's this argument without end.

Or perhaps 9/11 scared some people so mightily that they would now use any reason to excuse the use of torture...also, do tell why the same opinion of Arbour's that is made by these other people should also be invalidated...

That said, her "interpretation" is ultimately constrained by both the substance and the intent of the Convention Against Torture. These distinctions are apparently hard to make for a former jurist who now advocates on behalf of a highly politicized POV.

On the subject of waterboarding, I can't find where international statutes (i.e., U.N. Convention) against torture expressly preclude waterboarding as currently practiced. Kind of subject to interpretation, IMO.

So, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights is making the wrong interpretation even though she should be an expert on, you know, international statutes that cover this kind of thing...

BTW, has anyone of substance or standing overtly stated that we should defy the Geneva Convention? Questions of applicability and definition?; yes. outright rejection?; no.

On the subject of waterboarding, I can't find where international statutes (i.e., U.N. Convention) against torture expressly preclude waterboarding as currently practiced. Kind of subject to interpretation, IMO. Maybe that's why there's this argument without end.

While it scares the hell out of those being interrogated, does it cause "severe pain or suffering"? The temporary imposition of discomfort or fear doesn't cross my threshold.

Ultimately, and within reason, I defer to what works. If "torture" (not torture) provides time-sensitive info when other methods can't, I say strap 'em in and wet 'em down.

It's just the standard insinuation and conflation of discordant information.

That sounds like the justification to go to war with Iraq...by the way, how exactly is the waterboarding practiced by the Bush Administration not torture...

Nor, OTOH, does it prove that they were.

Sorry, there is no "evidence" in the reference given that states that KSM was tortured in the search for proof of an AQ-Iraq connection. "Revelations that KSM was questioned about possible al Qaeda ties to Iraq at roughly the same time that he was undergoing waterboarding..." isn't the same as "KSM was waterboarded to provide an AQ-IRAQ link." It's just the standard insinuation and conflation of discordant information.

One other thing. Anyone who willfully conflates WWII Japanese "water cure" and contemporary waterboarding are talking out of their azz. Different procedures, different intent, different results.

Even if you could prove that the waterboarding done by the Japanese during WWII was substantially different than what was practiced under the Bush Administration, that still does not prove that the methods done in the latter case weren't torture...

That was Cheney and the CIA, DIA, MI6, DGSE (French Intelligence), and the Mossad had it on very good authority that Saddam had WMD. Oh, and every Democratic member of Congress who had access to the classified information. Not that any of them would remember.

Yes, it appears that many people suspected that Saddam had WMD, but no one appears to have had definitive proof, and in the absence of that, an avoidable war and botched occupation really do seem unnecessary...interesting that we should be discussing these two things at the same time...evidence is slowly coming out the torture was used by the Bush Administration to try to provide a link between 9/11 and al-Qaeda link...how lovely...

You gotta get it right.
That was Cheney and the CIA, DIA, MI6, DGSE (French Intelligence), and the Mossad had it on very good authority that Saddam had WMD. Oh, and every Democratic member of Congress who had access to the classified information. Not that any of them would remember.