Water boarding is torture and should not be used by the U.S. and their allies.

There is still debate on whether it causes severe pain in every circumstance; however it CAN cause severe pain if used as it normally is against "enemies of the US": "Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and death [1]". You cannot deny that it CAN cause severe pain and damage. Let me ask you; is being drowned painful? If so, then Waterboarding is a form of drowning and it will cause the same distress, pain and damage to the lungs as being drowned will especially after being waterboarded "183 times [2]" as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was in April 2009. This is the general practice of using waterboarding and even from moderate use, it can cause damage to the individual. Also, the medical personnel/psychologists you are referring to were brought up on war crimes. Also, you frame it as them being there a good thing and that they would undoubtedly oversee and stop any unlawful techniques, but they were put in the "untenable position of "calibrating harm" rather than protecting and healing [s3]". So medical personnel being present meant nothing. Also, the "doctors are certainly guilty of war crimes for permitting torture to go forward and overseeing it while they had the authority to stop it [s3]". The doctors were there for the well being of the patients, they weren't there to oversee torture. And there isn't any psychological damage? Even from that brief encounter with it, Christopher Hitchens said how he was waking up with the feeling of being smothered due to what he had experienced; if from such a brief encounter that had happened to him, what would the effect be on those subject to it for hours? Now onto the law of the US. Torture under the law in the US states: "Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as 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 [s2]". This is national law on torture inside the US, but for international law on torture: "The War Crimes Act of 1966 (18 USC Section 2441) prohibits any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions"[s2]. The Third Geneva convention states: "prisoners of war must always be "humanely treated" (Article 13) and prohibits "physical and mental torture, [and] any other form of coercion" (Article 18) [s2]". Also, the Fourth Geneva convention states "civilian prisoners must be protected from "cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" (Article 3) [s2]". From that, you can clearly see that waterboarding is illegal. They definitely have, and further, you state "even if they do, they do much worse as well". That is curious because, as I stated before, being waterboarded as many times as some of them have, I cannot think of much worse in terms of waterboarding. And as I have stated, waterboarding hasn't got one form that is used by all who practice it (as most forms of torture don't either) and therefore, to try and measure which is worse is further complicated. In terms of gaining information, of course it will gain information because it's torture. Whether all of it is right or not is yet to be seen; if they are being put under this distress and this horrible procedure, of course they will get information. And those who carried out the deed claimed it to be getting them key information? A little suspect if they're the ones doing the torturing. And you say that "This pay off of information is more than enough in exchange for some discomfort on the part of the enemy soldiers"; this is not a view to be considered as humane or credible and it is torture and it goes against the Geneva convention agreements as I stated earlier. In terms of their allies you say "just because you think something is "wrong" doesn't mean you can claim to ban it from other nations". I'm not the only one who thinks it's morally wrong, international law states that it goes against national law and international law. And no, they shouldn't refrain from it on my part, they should refrain from it because it is against the law, it is morally wrong and it is not beneficial for the soldiers they capture; the more we torture through waterboarding the more we are doing what we say we detest with their treatment of our troops. And it is not acceptable as I have argued, in no way is it legal and on top of that it is wrong because it goes against basic human rights as stated by the Geneva convention. You say I cannot force my morals on this; equally then you cannot claim it to not be a harmful thing to the individuals it is being done to because it clearly is in both physical and psychological ways. Source [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... Source [2]: http://civilliberty.about.com... Source [3]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...