“According to Wikipedia, waterboarding is defined as a form of torture… not that some believe it to be torture and others (Pres. Bush) do not. So the liberal line is taken as the definition.”
Waterboarding is the 21st century term. Before that it was called the Chinese water torture.
What you are saying is that changing the name means it’s no longer torture. That is a very debatable argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
I don’t think Wiki shows bias in this instance. They use the term torture, which would seem to be both appropriate and historically accurate. They then point out that not everyone considers it torture.
If this was put to a vote in America I think a huge majority would vote that it is torture.
Biases would be not calling it torture.
For the sake of disclosure, I am very much in favor of torture, so long as it’s not me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Now there is bias. It seems that the UN definition of torture is anything except what the UN does. Then it becomes “lawful sanctions”, NOT torture.
So I suppose that once waterboarding is made a “lawful sanction” it will stop being torture.
