I’m not even sure that it qualifies as mental pain or suffering. You’re offering them a choice (or so they think): Lose your family or save the lives of innocent infidels. I say tough titties if they find that choice a difficult one.

Joe Carter can answer your question for himself, but I believe he already provided an answer in his Addendum, point 7:

18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control
(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death.

A review of that section of U.S. Code was done by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2004:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm.

Please see especially the last couple of sentences before the signature block and footnote 28:

“Thus, for example, the fact that a victim might have avoided being tortured by cooperating with the perpetrator would not make permissible actions otherwise constituting torture under the statute. Presumably that has frequently been the case with torture, but that fact does not make the practice of torture any less abhorrent or unlawful.
…
…we do not believe that the statute requires that the defendant actually inflict (as opposed to act with the specific intent to inflict) severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”

Nick:

G——————-wwwIEwwwww——–AB

Joe:

G————————-IE—wwwww—–AB

I think we start from a common understanding of morality.

And, thanks for the respectful dialog! (Oh, and given that you never saw my mother-in-law with a glass of water, per my earlier comment — not a pretty sight! — I may still see hers as at least a near relative of waterboarding….) ;-)

Thanks, Nick, that’s helpful to me in trying to understand your position. Your view:

G—-D—————wwwwwIEwwww———-AB

. . . is one that I hadn’t considered because I see waterboarding as a single type of act rather than one that has gradations along a spectrum.

Just so we’re all all clear on what we are discussing, waterboarding is suffocation by water, a mock execution that employs drowning and that can cause permanent psychological damage.

This is what waterboarding is in real-world interrogations. Now if the question is whether waterboarding as a technique can be done in real-world situation in a way that does not fit this definition, I would say “no.” Anything other than this and it isn’t really waterboarding at all.

The second question, though, is whether this same technique can be applied and have different moral outcomes. Again I would say no since I cannot imagine a scenario in which drowning someone is morally licit. In my view is in inherently evil to drown someone just as it is inherently evil to put someone through a mock execution.

Now, of course, there are gradations along the spectrum after the point that something becomes inherently evil. Abortion is obviously a greater evil than waterboarding. But I think that once people (at least Christians) understand exactly what waterboarding is that they should consider it inherently evil.

Here’s how I think the disagreement plays out (I hope the “graphics” work in translation):

The scale is to assess the “morality” of an activity
G=goodness
B=badness
IE=the point beyond which an activity is inherently evil
A=abortion
D=the furthers I could go along the scale to compel my 16-year old daughter to tell me where she went last evening (actually, she and my wife were at the mall — ugh!)
W=waterboarding defined as a single thing (a characterization with which I disagree, as does Marc T)
wwwwwwww=a spectrum for different “degrees of waterboarding

So:

the basic spectrum:

G——————————IE—————–B

adding abortion:

G——————————IE—————-AB

for my daughter:

G—-D————————-IE—————-AB

what I perceive as Joe’s point of view (could be wrong, here… Joe?):

G—-D————————-IE—–W———-AB

my view of “waterboarding”:

G—-D—————wwwwwIEwwww———-AB

another possible, and perhaps defensible veiw of waterboarding (definition is important):

G—-D————————-IE-wwwwwww–AB

Joe (and others), does this fairly frame the discussion and the disagreements involving Marc T, Joe, Mark S, and me? What am I missing (on this issue only, please, there are far to many other areas where I’m clueless, too…)?

Perhaps if you had read my follow-up post you wouldn’t have made such a silly claim.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBmYmNkN2YxN2MzNTg5OTBlM2Y0YmIwNTFhMTA5NWY=

Now, if you define “torture” a priori as lying beyond the IE threshold, fine. Then, if you take the next step defining “waterboarding” as torture, you’ve already won the “argument” through semantics. So, I think we should dispense with the word “torture” and merely discuss “waterboarding” with respect to the IE threshold. It saves time and confusion.

I disagree with your assessment of waterboarding as inherently beyond IE. Based on what I have read and heard, I believe that there is a range of waterboarding choices, and that IE lies somewhere along that range.

As to your “I’ve known people” point, I don’t know what to say. Would I want it done to me? No. Would I want it done to a terrorist, knowing that he would suffer no permanent damage beyond an awful experience? Maybe. I’ve actually sat through a Streissand movie. And live to tell the tale — older but wiser.