Diuretic
Permanently confused
Does that differ from it being policy as this administration has written? "Anything short of organ failure or death."
Also what about all the scumbags that were tortured in Gitmo and then set free when they couldn't find any thing they had done? How many have been released from Gitmo without charges to date?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html
Is a suspected terrorist a terrorist and loses all rights as a suspect or do we have any duty to first prove he is a terrorist before we torture him?
It's okay to imprison you for years and torture you even if you didn't commit a crime because we think you could be a terrorist?
What they have effectively done is create lifelong enemies for US.
And torture is wrong legally or morally without any fucking dependence on your party affiliation. That is bullshit, and you know it.
I made the point that it might sometimes be necessary. That suggests that the circumstances have to be explored and that I'm not just going to trot out an "I'm against all torture" statement. I would be faced with the obvious objection - would I approve of torture if it meant that thousands of lives were saved? My answer is, yes, of course I would. But that doesn't translate to me approving of torture as routine or even used occasionally.