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.
Actually no — I'm taking the next logical step from the premise given by DuncanWaring (see post 7).
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.
Right — That it's not regular/usual might mean something.
That being the case, perhaps it would be helpful to rephrase your question.
If waterboarding is a morally acceptable interrogation technique, what is to stop the police from using it domestically?
Especially considering that there are large swathes of citizens that the government has all but officially declared terrorists.
(Remember the 2009 DHS report?)