That's not my premise, not at all.
I've said virtually nothing on waterboarding.
My premise is that the Constitution is not entirely silent on the subject of torture.
(BTW, one of those who has worn the uniform is me.)
Waterboarding is an Enhanced Interrogation Technique performed on high profile enemy combatants on foreign soil.
And?
If it's not torture, what's preventing it from being used domestically? Why isn't it used here in police interrogations?
I'm far less interested in the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture as I am the question of the Constitution's applicability. — I also find it somewhat disturbing that one of the more conservative Justices
(heck, anyone on the USSC) would say that the Constitution says absolutely nothing on the subject. — And these are the people we're supposed to defer to in all maters Constitutional?
OK, great, we are in complete agreement, then. Waterboarding is a harsh example of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT).
EIT is NOT torture.
And finally, SC Scalia said: “while there are U.S. laws against torture, nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. “I don’t know what article of the Constitution that would contravene.”
That’s good enough for me. Have a nice evening, fellow Vet and Friend.