I was merely highlighting the illogical premise you formulated earlier, i.e. that we shouldn't do something to others if we wouldn't want it done to our own troops. The fact that you wouldn't want our troops to get water-boarded is irrelevant to whether or not it is an acceptable practice.
No you're simply cutting off these actions from their contexts. It is not irrelevant when you do not pressupose equal context and acceptability of the procedeures.
Stop being so obtuse. The whole point of having a military is to protect innocent civilians. Obtaining actionable intelligence from terrorists helps protect those civilians; therefore it is a military necessity.
Here you miss out the key point that we still need to be restrained in how we do it. Hence I do not advocate attacking any nation that poses even a small risk.
Is this supposed to mean something?
Yep, your side is relying on 24-like scenarios that are very unrealistic.
It can also prevent terrorist attacks.
Nope, it has gained a little info then helped to prevent some plans from moving forward.
There is nothing dishonorable about protecting my family and my country.
Contextless assertion. Meaningless.
As for giving the state the power to torture known terrorists, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. If your rebuttal is that the government could conceivably label anyone a "terrorist" and start torturing people with impunity you might as well give up. I mean, the government could conceivably label anyone a "criminal" and start imprisoning them with impunity too. Does this mean we need to get rid of the justice system?
That makes no sense. The justice system takes place in broad daylight, it is not supposedly secret and without due process. The jutice system is supposed to work with limits, balances and the rule of law, none of this is there for this torture.
There is no defined "battlefield" in asymmetrical warfare.
There are still boundaries. You cannot normally burn down the villages of those you suspect of
The Allies wore uniforms and acted at the behest of a nation-state. These are crucial distinctions one must ignore in order to equate them with terrorists.
Oh so now they must not wear uniforms. Now it is going from broad to arbitrary. If you wear a uniform and murder civilians you aren't a terrorist then it is fine. Got it.
You seem to making this up as you go along.
So are a lot of things. Ever been pepper-sprayed in the eyes?
It would be in the same contexts. If you are warded away as a member of crowd by the riot police with a smack across the face you aren't being toertured but in a cell having it repeatedly done to you then you are.
How in the world is this relevant?
Well it seems that at least one senior figures disagrees with you.
Contrary to popular opinion, I cannot read people's minds. You said extreme distress - I've been forcibly subjected to periods of extreme distress numerous times. Why doesn't your argument apply to people like me?
Context, context. It is pretty simple. We are obviously talking about people in custody being forcibly being exposed to great distress, distress far beyond discomfort.