First of all, the word is "tacks" not "tacts." Second, I have never ever claimed that waterboarding is not torture. Third, you continue either to misconstrue or dishonestly represent my argument concerning the morality of torture. I have never claimed that there is no such thing as torture. I have only argued that the perceived morality of the use of physical force depends on circumstances, and there is nothing magical about torture versus other forms of physical and mental coercion in that regard. Another way of saying this is that just because some action crosses the legal line separating torture from non-torture, the moral outrage meter shouldn't discontinuously jump to 11. Using a level of physical force short of torture on a suspect can be just as immoral or more so as waterboarding a terrorist, depending upon circumstances. I have also argued that such circumstances may even justify the waterboarding of a terrorist so the act isn't immoral at all.
It's a shame that you have been so misunderstood, especially when you are trying to explain something so trite: that law and morality do not precisely coincide. But, broadly speaking, at least in the criminal sphere, they should. I am happy to help you draft a law that will reflect your personal preferences in this area. It will contain a general defintion of torture, as in the international treaty the US has repudiated, but will go on to provide:
It shall be a defence to a charge of torture for the accused to prove that any relevant act (to be defined) was carried out in exceptional circumstances of grave and imminent danger to the national interest (to be defined).
How does that sit with you? I can think of further safeguards too. As with executions, acts of torture can be witnessed by specified persons to ensure fair play: the local sheriff, a judge, NBC etc . We can also permit publication of the footage on social media to get the message out to the bad guys (that's them, not us, of course) so they don't have it all their own way.
We can set up a regulatory commission to issue regulations and guidance to ensure that the law, which I suggest we call Sunmaster's Law, is clear to everybody. We can by these means regulate the persons authorised to conduct torture, submitting them for regular psychiatric check-ups, for example, as well as listing permitted/verboten types of torture. In that regard, how do you feel about the following:
Toe and finger nail pulling
Teeth pulling
Bollock crushing
Genital electrocution
Molestation of family members in presence of
victim terrorist
Head crushing
Racking
Plunging of feet in molten metal (a particular favourite from the Middle ages)
Playing endless loops of Bob Dylan?
As I say, these are just ideas I want to run passed you. I am at your service in case they don't marry up with your moral code but I do want to be clear that there is no impediment to bringing the law into line, or more into line, with whatever that code is.
ETA do we also need an evidential threshold in there somewhere that requires there to be a reason for supposing the, er, subject actually might know something useful? Have a stab at that, in layman's lingo, and I'll draft it for you.
