Other than a Bush-era executive order, I don't know of any justification for torture of an enemy by U.S. forces.
As I pointed out in post 15, equivocating on the word "torture" does not make a valid argument. Either by "torture" you mean anything that an enemy may not happen to like, such as being kept in captivity (which as an aside included very awful conditions in the civil war), or you mean something they do not like that is so awful that it must never ever be done even as punishment to an unlawful combatant in a case that could save innocent life. In the first case, other Presidents have authorized torture. If the second then you have the burden to show why its so awful to do to the terrorists when we even used to do it to our own elite soldiers in training. Or if you think that it is somewhere in between it still falls short of the second case, and thus your argument is in ruins because the second case is exactly what you must show. And I am too smart to be fooled by equivocations. Sorry ;-).
They should have something similar to the MRI experience...that lasts for hours. I think everything done to them should remain secret so they can only expect the worst.
But whatever we do....it should involve hogs.
“As I pointed out in post 15, equivocating on the word “torture” does not make a valid argument.”
I had completely forgotten about the old “post 15” rule - the one where you make a statement and later cite the statement as a source of high credibility.
The brief and the short of it is this: you and Trump are planning to torture some enemies, real or imagined.
What could go wrong with that?