Nice try, but this is not the case. It is a violation of the protections of lawful combatants who are captured--and nobody is advocating waterboarding lawful combatants.
People blending into to a population out of uniform for the mass murder of civilians do not fall under the protections of lawful prisoners of war.
If there are any other arguments that may actually be valid, I still welcome hearing of them.
This was hashed out long ago. Again, from Wikipedia:
“The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.[3] The term “unlawful combatants” was first used in U.S. municipal law in a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case Ex parte Quirin.[28] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of eight German saboteurs in the U.S. during World War II. This decision states:
By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”
Note well the sentence: “Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.”
Other than a Bush-era executive order, I don't know of any justification for torture of an enemy by U.S. forces.
Under the circumstances, Bush can be pardoned, or maybe just censured, for his administration's limited use of waterboarding.
The real problem is the slippery slope. Just 15 years after 9/11 voters are considering giving torture powers to either a radical Marxist like Clinton, or an idiot like Trump.
>> nobody is advocating waterboarding lawful combatants <<
You are obviously well informed on the issue. Thanks for your input!
But now, it would be interesting to know if Mr. Trump has any understanding here. My bet is that he doesn’t have a clue, and moreover that he doesn’t care one whit about the distinctions you have so ably delineated.