Waterboarding should be prohibited.

Thanks to Pro for posting this challenge to me. It remains an interesting and controversial topic. The Wikifolks define waterboarding as torture, but there's no agreement on that. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org... quotes a CIA description as to what the procedure is: "In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated." That's what it is, and that's all we need to debate it. How it is characterized is a separate matter. The non-opinionated Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is: waterboarding: an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning http://www.merriam-webster.com... Note that in the CIA description, water is not forced into the detainees mouth and nose, but is rather run over the person's covered face. The CIA definition is the one relevant to our debate. Whether waterboarding meets the US legal definition of torture has been deliberately left unclear by Congress. Congress knew for many years that waterboarding was being used by the CIA, but they never acted to outlaw it or define it as torture. As one commentator put it, "The DOJ legal analysis was the best effort of front-line lawyers in the aftermath of a massive attack on the United States. ... They are the lawmakers, and chose --even when House and Senate were controlled by Democrats from January 2007 to the present-- to avoid passing a law bringing clarity to the very gray areas of the law of interrogation." http://gold-platedwitchonwheels.blogspot.com... I accept Pro's definition of "prohibited." Some other definitions may be of use during the debate: punishment a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure http://www.merriam-webster.com... interrogate: To examine by questioning formally or officially. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... rendition: (n.) handing over prisoners to countries where torture is allowed http://dictionary.sensagent.com... ticking time bomb problem: A situation in which a detainee knows information that would enable preventing a disastrous event or events, where the timeliness of the information is critical to the preventing it from occurring. [This is my definition, which I think reflects general usage. I couldn't find a succinct formal definition on the web.] This debate is about whether waterboarding, whether called torture or not, should ever be legally allowed for use in the United States as part of an interrogation. Pro will argue that there are no circumstances where waterboarding should be legal. I will argue that there are some circumstances where it should be legal.