Michael, like (sadly) most discussions of this sort, I’m afraid that your discussion is more effective at avoiding communication than encouraging it.  The flaw, I think, finally comes around to the word "torture", which has been so politicized as to have lost useful meaning.   You say "waterboarding has constituted torture for decades" — which just begs the follow on question "Could you tell me the day on which waterboarding stopped being simply vigorous interrogation and started being torture?", along with the secondary question "could you tell me who issued the memo, and on what authority, that changed waterboarding from non-torture to torture?"  If so, was it before or after waterboarding was introduced as the example of "vigorous interrogation" used on members of the military in SERE courses.  It’s also indistinguishable from the high school hazing technique called "swirling."  Torture is considered a war crime: are the perpetrators of "swirling" war criminals, on a par with Milosevic and "Chemical "Ali"?Second, of course, is that your position on this — all or nothing, no nuance or gradation — begs one to ask, Socratically, "is there no greater evil than waterboarding?"  Even McCain has allowed that, in conditions of dire need, waterboarding might be necessary (he’d have it authorized by the President, who would then, I presume, pardon the perpetrators.)   So, at what point does waterboarding constitute a lesser evil than what might be prevented?  Would you authorize a waterboarding if it could save 10,000 lives?  1,000?  Simply dismissing it by "oh, that’s the ticking time bomb analogy" will just demonstrate you’re not willing to face the actual moral consequences of your acts: waterboard and commit "torture"?  Or not waterboard, and take responsibility for the deaths of innocents?  Nor is "but torture doesn’t work" a viable response: we know that other methods of interrogation get more intelligence, and sometimes better intelligence, but other methods aren’t particularly fast.  In any case, we have testimony to the precise contrary: the three al-Qaeda "high value" captives who were waterboarded apparently did reveal useful and actionable intelligence that saved lives.  Again, the question is: waterboard and save lives?  or not waterboard, and contribute to the deaths of innocents?Then, of course, there’s the issue of how we know where the line really should be drawn: a moment’s googling will easily find examples of people claiming that solitary confinement is torture; it would be easy enough to find examples where the lack of a private toilet, or the provision of balanced and nourishing, but bland and uninteresting, meals is called "torture."  Even confinement without a known limit — confinement for the duration of hostilities, as POWs have always been detained — is called torture.  (Which then presents another issue: the Geneva Conventions provided for confinement as al alternative to execution, so that prisoners would be removed from the hostile forces of the enemy.  If incarceration is "torture", does that mean it’s a greater evil than simply having a policy of not taking prisoners?)  Are those examples torture?  If not now, will they become torture when the memo is issued some time in the future?The (literally) indiscriminate use of the word "torture", much like the indiscriminate use of the  word "fascist", is quickly turning it from a useful term into a mere epithet. Even more so than "fascist," though, this indiscriminate use of "torture" has the effect of blurring the very differences between acceptable and unacceptable behavior that you try to establish.  By blurring this line, you necessarily equate waterboarding with beatings, electric shock, starvation, and all.  Far from taking the " moral high ground", you end up putting yourself into an essentially amoral swamp: you refuse to discriminate between minor and more major offenses.

That would have been a lot clearer, by the way, if my paragraph breaks had been preserved.