...40 seconds...

* those that oppose waterboarding (predominately leftists) of bloodthirsty thugs concurrently have no problems with partial birth abortion.

the consideration (by the leftists) for the bloodthirsty thugs exceeds that of the US soldiers, Iraqi noncombatants, and USA citizens.

But I did not say anything about leftists advocating waterboarding of US soldiers, Iraqi noncombatants, or US citizens.
I DID say that leftists apparently have more CONSIDERATION for the thugs than they do for the lives of US soldiers, Iraqi noncombatants, or US citizens.

Apples and oranges? I would say more like opposing an attempt to protect people, via waterboarding, at the expense of assumed killers, and concurrently supporting killing full-term feti.

And PBA are, from what I understand, predominately elective.
In fact, why would a full-term child be killed half-birthed in order to protect the life of the mother. Why not just birth it?

If you want to fight terror, you have to be prepared to inconvenience the people who bomb, kidnap, decapitate and murder civilians and soldiers.

Those who want to treat terrorists with kid gloves are the ones who complain the loudest when the intelligence community is caught flat footed by terrorist attacks.

I might consider choppering in the prisoner(s) to downtown Montreal, however.

I'd certainly use every means legal under international law to try and get valid information. I'd use psychological pressure, tricks, and might even consider letting them believe they were about to be turned over to American custody.

I'd possibly let them "accidentally" let them see a CNN "breaking news bulletin" announcing the capture of Bin Laden by Canadian forces based in Afghanistan, and our politicians discussing if we should turn HIM over to the Americans (with shots of Canadian protesters arguing that he should not be.)

That carefully prepared video would show our Prime Minister was fighting to ensure Bin Laden would be kept in Canadian custody, against some strong opposition from political parties , certain segments of the Canadian population, and not least of all the Americans.

Let's say while you are using the info to save Montreal, Calgary gets blown up by the nuke, because the prisoners lied about the real location to stop the torture. Shall we still consider torture a viable means of information gathering?

You obtain information by asking questions like; "Why do you hate America?" "What do you expect to achieve?" "Why do you believe what you believe?" How do you expect terror to work?" Why do you think it will break America, when we have faced so many other threats?" What do you know about America?" Did you know that we have well over a million Muslims living in America and that they have the freedom to believe and practice their religion?"

To me, it would MUCH more reprehensible if we knew of a terrorist plan to nuke a major US city and didn't use the necessary means to find out the details.

that common sense would dictate that it be allowed.

Edisto, I've actually heard and read some of my fellow Americans scream outrage that our government "allowed" 9-11 to happen; that we didn't use "any and all" means to prevent it.

Actually, what I described, is EXACTLY how intelligence is gathered.

Torture in my opinion is the passing of an acceptable threshold of coersion.
We'll use webster- the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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.

Ok since your refusing to explain why it is torture, I shall ask you: Why do you consider it to be torture? WHY do you consider it to be torture?

It has never decribed as painful.

Kiriakou said he lasted only a few seconds during his training because his body felt like it was seizing up almost immediately.

It was brought up as a charge because of the nature of the method and was excessively used. None of those men who were charged were charged because they subjected an individual to 40 seconds of waterboarding that used a non-forceful method in its application.

Every single case you have cited dealt with perpetrators who excessively used waterboarding. Nobody is going to disagree with you there.

You live in a fantasy world. You honestly believe that people who are committed to a cause will quickly abandon both the cause and their comrades because of friendly questioning from a conflict resolution specialist?

Forget about terrorists, then. Let's consider an easier nut to crack. In your world, if you want to recruit a Russian general or a Chinese diplomat or whatever and have extremely limited time, all you need to do is get him alone on a weekend retreat, extoll the virtues of our society, and he'll give you everything he knows. Good luck with that.