Here's what this poor guy Scott Shane in the New York Times writes today about waterboarding; original article here:
Some of those C.I.A. prisoners were interrogated using techniques far harsher than anything approved in earlier wars, including waterboarding, a simulated drowning that many human rights advocates believe crossed the line into torture.
But surely it's not just human rights advocates who can claim the honor of describing waterboarding as torture! Doesn't Scott Shane also think it is torture? If an American or Israeli soldier were subjected to waterboarding as a way to extract information about an upcoming military operation, wouldn't we say that soldier was being tortured? Can anyone imagine a New York Times reporter writing up a story about an American or Israeli soldier being waterboarded for information about an upcoming military offensive, and saying "some human rights advocates believe waterboarding is a form of torture"?
Conclusion: the harmful effects of this "war on terror" are only beginning to be felt. And: I feel sorry for Scott Shane, who has lost the ability to describe waterboarding as torture, and instead assigns that position to some interest group.