I am profoundly embarrassed to say I cannot find a reliable source. I made the comment in recollection of Senator McCain saying so; tells you something about trusting the word of a politician, eh? Thank you, really, for pointing out the inadequacy of my assertion. 

This op-ed may be instructive: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

It is written by a former Navy JAG officer and now law professor, and it details some history of the technique known as "waterboarding." It does not, suffice it to say, point to any primary source regarding the sentencing of Japanese interrogators as they related to waterboarding. It does, however, offer some useful history. 

In any event, waterboarding is included in SERE training, among other things, to train our most at-risk-of-capture special forces in enduring enemy interrogation tactics. My assertion that waterboarding was, until recently, universally understood to be "torture" is derived primarily from my inability to find any source - those emanating from the Bush administration notwithstanding - arguing that it is not, or that it was not understood to be so. Though cautiously aware of the fact that winners tend to write history, there is no source, to my knowledge, of waterboarding being used on a western nation or people without its use being condemned and punished. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Seriously, I do enjoy being corrected. 

Not being FWS, but having a lot of time on my hands today, allow me to proffer an answer (given my agreement with FWS on this issue, I hope you don't mind).

To your first question: assiduously. Zealously. Sedulously. Vigilantly. But, really, I for one reject the premise of your question: namely, that NOT torturing captives exposes us to the terrorist threat more than otherwise. That you assume this to be true does not make it so; there are very compelling and reasonable arguments on either side.

Deeper, still, one must wonder about the character of people who are so openly, unapologetically willing to shed the rule of law for the sake of temporal and ephemeral notions such as "safety." We could be safer than ever, I would suppose, by building a wall around the country and keeping everybody in small cells, letting robots run the world. At least we wouldn't be harming each other. But I digress.

As to your second question...I must have missed the correlation in Prof. Veith's post between torture and the geographic specificity of detainment decisions. I'll let FWS handle that one.

I'd be interested to see a citation to an international accord to which we are a party that specifically exempts any class of individual from the prohibitions on inhuman treatment.

One other thing, if I may. We waterboarded suspects, some dozens of times. We put Japanese interrogators to death for waterboarding American troops during WWII, calling it torture. We had, until recently, universally agreed that waterboarding was torture. The Japanese who were put to death were simply collecting intelligence on U.S. military positions, tactics, strategies, etc. There was nothing "sadistic" about it, so your implication that what we did was not done sadistically, and ergo not technically "torture," rings hollow.

"Basically, you would rather the enemy have an upper hand because we are limited by perceived torture methods."

This is a preposterously audacious thing to say. I would think that FWS, whomever he (or she) is, is an unlikely cheerleader for the terrorists' upper-hand. An unfortunate news alert for the non-naive Trey: we ARE limited in so many other ways NOT involving torture that to use this line of argument is to expose yourself to a virtual anything-goes mentality.

Due process? Not for the terrorists (even domestic ones, American citizens). Traditional rules of conflict? Not for the terrorists (or, more importantly, the people around them). Any concept of the rule of law? Not when the terrorists are still out there...

It's absolutely absurd that right-wingers are so appalled by Obama's DHS putting out memos blacklisting them, but in the same breath they would give Obama (or at least condone the claiming by Bush of) the power to do virtually whatever he wants when it comes it Islamic terrorists. And herein lies the problem that anyone with any sense of history whatsoever instantly recognizes: when you destroy the rule of law for purpose X, the corrupting power of arbitrary authority inevitably expands the scope of purpose X to include purposes A, B, and C as well.

You think torture is swell. Fine. But don't confuse your enthusiasm for torture with the requirement that our elected officials follow the rule of law. It matters not whether torture works, from a legal perspective. It matters that we as a society and as a world (Reagan, and, until recently, everybody else, included) decided that torture was inhuman would be illegal, and those who did it, those who authorized it, and those who failed to hold them accountable are all culpable.

I have to confess I absolutely detest the notion of prosecuting former Bush administration officials. The same I can say for CIA line officers carrying out their orders. There is, in my view, a worrisome aspect of this enterprise that naggingly asks, "what would you have done?" (For full disclosure purposes: the prospect of holding some congressional democrats accountable as well is more palatable...but that's my sinful nature)

That being said, I pray to the Lord above that I would have used better judgment. At the least, I would hope I would have been able to tell the difference between legal advice meant to honestly interpret and "legal advice" meant to ease my conscience. To answer Prof. Veith's question, I would argue that, if war crimes were committed (and it appears that they were), the perpetrators should be held to account, with the full due process of law, and with full disclosure (if, for no other reason than ensuring that those holding them to account are themselves accountable).

And if President Obama believes war crimes to have been committed and does nothing, he himself, as I understand our international obligations, is culpable for aiding and abetting. There is nothing partisan about this.

It would...if everybody didn't already know that we did it. But they do. We air our dirty laundry. That's what makes us different. Whether everyone knew it already or not, I would actually think releasing pertinent information to illegal interrogation programs and policies, as well as information relating to how they were executed, is a big step towards reclaiming the moral high ground.

In any event, I'm afraid I see a striking practical dichotomy between punishing lawbreakers, which is apparently acceptable, and condemning publicizing what they did. Wishful thinking, Professor.

Wall Street is efficient, Peter, but only in the short term. I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with on you this, because reading between the lines it appears as though we're singing the same tune. Ultimately, short-term capital gains, with a focus on nothing else (of which Wall Street is indeed efficient) will reap only long-term foundational deterioration, morally, physically, economically, and politically. One could hardly disagree with your analysis of the Chinese strength, and I agree that economic liberalisation (yes, I used the standardised spelling) will develop into political liberalisation as well.

That being said, a substantial element of Chinese "development" has been Washington spinelessness to enforce trade agreements. I had to chuckle at the comment in the quoted article about Latin American countries attempting to copy Chinese "development." You want 12% annual GDP growth? Stubbornly fix your currency to the dollar (thereby virtually eliminating imports) and maintain tough labor price controls. Then hope the "Washington people" don't call you out on it. It doesn't hurt to be friendly with a wack-job with nuclear weapons...just so the DC folk need to be nice to you.

I attempted to make this point yesterday, but, alas, the post did not post. Did I do something wrong?

There is something sadly, but unsurprisingly, missing from the discussion here: specifics. FWS, and in a more roundabout way Scylding above, hits the nail on the head when he notes that there do seem to be those among us who assume that wherever the rule of law touches the "free" market, communism naturally ensues.

But what of these proposals? Not in theory...in reality. Enough of the "isms" and schools. Can someone explain to me why giving revolving-credit consumers a legal right to set their own credit limits (if they want a limit lower than the limit available to them) is a bad thing? A regulation of this kind does not hinder the free market; indeed, it makes it freer by leveling the playing field between those with the intrinsic bargaining advantage (the lenders) and those who have virtually no bargaining power.

Plain language requirements? Same story. It spreads the availability of useful information and therefore encourages consumers to make better decisions. How is that not a freer market, unless one holds to some absurd proposition that a "free" market demands the absolute power to leverage informational, financial, and situational strength in any way, shape, or form no matter the moral or ethical implications.

There is, as one poster above so eloquently put it, a tendency among us to ascribe to some political or economic theory and treat that theory as the eleventh commandment. And the truly sad thing? Most of us, myself included, are better at keeping that eleventh commandment, stubbornly, faithfully, flawlessly, than we are at the other ten.

I'm shocked (shocked!) to find so many universal assertions on this board (see above). Now, for "the government to intrude into the free market is," per se, "a liberal position to take." Well forgive me for my raging, flaming liberal mind, kerner, but I would prefer to NOT see the government get out of the business of say, intruding into the free market certification of surgeons. I also happen to be a hopeless deluded liberal, apparently, when it comes to, say, government regulation of automobile safety standards. Not that I plan on purchasing a Pinto anytime soon, but I'm awfully wary of that fellow parked next to me.