Case 1:
A terrorist has been captured by American intelligence officers. There is strong reason to believe that this member of Al Qaida has information about a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. Since benign interrogation techniques failed, waterboarding is used to obtain information and protect the safety of the American public. Protecting the American public takes precedence over the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Case 2:
Iranian intelligence have captured an American intelligence officer doing reconnaisance at a suspected nuclear facility. Iranians belive that a military strike is imminent and that hundreds of Iranians would be killed. Since benign interrogation techniques failed, the Iranians use waterboarding to obtain information from the American agent. Protecting the Iranian public from the largest army in the world and the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction takes precedence over the Geneva Convention and the UN CAT.

In case 1 Americans are threatened by terrorists bent on acts of destruction. In case 2 Iranians feel threatened by American military might. Americans believe it is their right to protect themselves from terrorists. Iranians belive that they have the right to pursue nuclear deterrent as a way to protect themselves (something that the US has had since WW II).

The question is, if waterboarding was used in both cases, who is right? Both sides feel threatened. Is waterboarding OK if our side does it, and wrong when our enemies use it?

Like somebody said earlier, the enemy plays hard ball. Is this not a slippery slope? If waterboarding fails, should we pull out the dusty old rack and the thumb screws?