If it's morally acceptable (because it's not torture), why don't we use it regularly in domestic police interrogations?
Because in police interrogations, coerced confessions are not admissible in court.
For the same reason we don't use other (still not torture) methods in domestic police interrogations.
There is a shoe scraping that every year calls the families of his victim just to torment them. I would be perfectly comfortable having him water boarded until he tells where he buried his victim.
Not so comfortable having the jerk that cut me off today water boarded.
Because we have a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against ourselves.
Remember - if you’re too open-minded, your brain falls out.
Because there is no pressing need for any information that don’t have on conspiracies to kill large numbers of people.
Terroists are special cases that require special measure.
Really, I see no need to ask such stupid questions on your part. If you want to coddle terrorists, you’ll have to do it without me.
You appear to be attempting to apply "moral acceptability" in a morally relative way. You establish a false premise in doing so.
We havn't used so called "waterboarding" as an EIT "regularly" with terrorists, quite rarely actually. Only three individuals out of thousands, and those were years ago.
That being the case, perhaps it would be helpful to rephrase your question.