But he won’t water board a terrorist....sound like a libtard position to me.
"Well under the definition of torture, no it's not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems," Cruz said in response to the direct question. "So under the definition it is not. It is enhanced interrogation,it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture."
Asked whether he would bring it back, Cruz said he would not "bring it back in any sort of widespread use," noting that he co-sponsored legislation with Sen. John McCain "that would prohibit line officers from employing it, because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at lower levels.
"But when it comes to keeping this country safe, the commander in chief has inherent constitutional authority to keep this country safe," he said. "And so if it were necessary to prevent a city from, say, facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that as commander in chief, I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could to keep this country safe."
Other than mentioning the despised name of John McCain in his answer, what other problem do you have with it?
The effectiveness of water boarding is hotly debated, and many think that any information collected through torture is questionable. That is not a liberal position, per se; plenty of conservative military guys consider torture ineffective.
Cruz (1) won’t waterboard a terrorist, and (2) said he aligns with John McCain. The man has discernment issues. On many levels.