Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
To some knuckle dragging cretins being better has no meaning. We signed an important international document guaranteeing how we would treat captured prisoners. It is clear that some Americans ARE no better than our enemies.
If waterboarding saves the life of ONE American soldier, it is completely justified. It is clear that some Americans have never served in a shooting war.