I'd like to subject Lieberman to some psychological torment...

How 'bout we win a big enough majority in November so that we don't need him any more and can kick his ass to the curb regarding his having any clout in committees?

He deserves to be in the minority, supporting McCain for Pres, the war, torture, and on and on.

[The only good thing about Bush stealing the Presidency in 2000, and I mean THE only thing, is we didn't get this guy as VP. He's a big part of the reason I had to vote Green in 2000, in safely Democratic California where Gore had no chance of losing the state.]

"[Waterboarding] is not like putting burning coals on people's bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological," he says.

Exactly, the effect of water torture is psychological. It permanently damages the psyche of the torture victim, and it further polarizes the world community against the country that practices water torture.

Every single person that performs or supports water torture belongs in prison. Patriotic Americans must send them there.

Waterboarding is not live coals on a persons body. Thanks for the tip, dude.
Waterboarding causes extreme trauma. Extreme trauma causes brain damage. Psychological scars from trauma are invisable, unlike flesh burns from hot coals.
The best book on trauma I have ever read: Trauma and Recovery, by Judith Herman. Importantly, the social, political aspects of trauma are covered by Herman.
Further, Social Psychology tells us: torture does not work; and, it is very hard to disobey an authoritarian system where torture is accepted.
I believe were we to understand trauma better, as a people, we would be a lot happier.

If its all just a mind game, why the hell do trained medical personnel have to be there? To assuage the guilty conscience of the torturers?

And frankly, I am sick and tired of the argument against torture where people pipe up with this bullcrap line "but it doesn't work so why use it".

Torture is WRONG because it causes unspeakable physical and mental damage to another living being, not because of its effectiveness in getting actionable intelligence. Personally, I don't care if it yielded good info every friggin' time... its still immoral to cause pain and suffering for any reason whatsoever and should never be used.

America and Americans have a LONG way to go if the only argument against torture is its ineffectiveness.

I wouldn't waterboard Lieberman if he had burning hot coals on his body.

-AF

Would the Geneva Conventions be kept or violated by the use of waterboarding as described by Bradbury / Mc Cain / Lieberman ? My money says that the activities described would violate the Geneva Conventions - Does it follow then that these erstwhile leaders have publically supported war crimes.What other torture techniques are also being perpetrated to "protect America" .Recall Alberto Gonzales & John Yoo declared the Geneva Convention quaint and outdated ...
This is a national security issue as well - the information gleaned from these 'enhanced interrogations ' is worthless any way-
Fellow citizens this is torture activity is criminal , this must be stopped -where do SeN Clinton & Sen Obama stand on this issue ?
Where oh where has our moral outrage gone - Congresswoman Barbara Jordan must be weeping in her grave ,,,,

Would the Geneva Conventions be kept or violated by the use of waterboarding as described by Bradbury / Mc Cain / Lieberman ?

Geneva bars all abuse. Geneva would be violated if waterboarding was used. Because DOJ OLC has admitted waterboarding was used, the US DOJ legal staff has admitted that war crimes occurred.

The convoluted non-sense is rather than focus on "abuse," the US is pretending Geneva/war crimes are linked with the US definition of "torture". Non-sense. All abuse against POWs is a war crime. The smokescreen is to ignore the "ban on abuse," and pretend the question is whether treatment is or isn't torture.

McCain, Bradbury, and Lieberman have described waterboarding in terms of illegal abuse which Geneva prohibits as a war crime. Lieberman, like Scalia, is allegedly arguing for war crimes against POWs. The Justice Trials did prosecute civilians who refused to enforce Geneva, as Lieberman and Scalia are required.

If enough Members of Congress and the court comment on this, they could create enough evidence to show there is a policy in the Congress to not fully enforce Geneva. This is an implicit admission that the members of Congress like Lieberman are not fully asserting their oath to enforce all US treaty obligations. Those in a position to do something, but refuse, could be prosecuted for war crimes.

Now we know why Bolton and others have a disdain for Geneva obligations: They never took an international law class, much less a law class of the international laws of war.