Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Zenda]

Do you mean like Daniel King's, "How Good Is Your Chess?", which in the editorial review says, "His easy-to-follow, test-yourself format asks readers to predict their opponent's moves."

As usual, your links show little to nothing to support your case. How do you suppose mr. King achieves his goal? By instructing readers to get 'background' information about other players before the game, or by telling them how to interpret the moves they make during?

It has gotten to an annoying level now.

Not as 'annoying' as some visitors of this forum found most of your posts these past few years, but that's fine.

Either link to a post in this thread were I supported torture in any way

This, for example:

Somewhere between slow flaying and harsh words there needs to be a line drawn. Only actions which cross that line should be considered torture. Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion.

In other words, you do approve when *you* think the method applied is not torturing. Isn't that what the Bush administration used as an argument too? Well, this may come as a surprise for you, but international laws on this subject haven't waited for you to provide a definition that matches *your* criteria.

Any action, when applied by autorised personnel on persons in their custody, and not as a part of a legal sentence, to force someone to do something against their will, is torture.

Well then, are you against Waterboarding, and any other 'technique' employed for the same purpose? Or do you think that laws should be adjusted to allow the methods you find useful enough?