No, it's not different. I don't want my troops to befall a gruesome battlefield death - just as you do not want them to be water boarded (oh no!) - so that means we must disallow such a possibility. Your logic, not mine.That is different
Extracting actionable intelligence from terrorists hell-bent on murdering innocent civilians is also a necessity of war.that is part of the battlefield necessities of war
This is preposterous. Men are disemboweled, blown up, killed with nerve agents, burned alive, shot to pieces, heads smashed in, run over by tanks, etc. Hell, I once saw an Iraqi police officer get crushed to death by a giant slab of concrete. The only constraint on the battlefield is the human imagination.It is not unusual, it does not happen to those who are already in the custody of their enemy and is pursued, or can be, within definite constraints and boundaries.
How is it broad? To what portion of a given population can that definition conceivably apply?That is a very broad category.
Only if they meet the aforementioned criteria and the intended purpose of their disposal is to protect innocent civilians.Ah enemies of state can be disposed of as we wish.
1. Your idea of "extreme pain" is a joke. It's obvious you've never experienced "extreme pain" otherwise you wouldn't use to term so loosely. Having your fingernails pulled out with pliers is extremely painful. Being subjected to a simulated drowning is really unpleasant. There is a difference.Where you captured by the enemy and submitted to extreme pain and distress like that that takes place in waterboarding?
2. You are moving the goal posts. You said torture was defined by "extreme distress." Now you're inserting irrelevant qualifiers like being captured by the enemy. I was forcibly subjected to periods of "extreme distress" while in the military, so according to you I've been tortured numerous times.