Don't bother with your flowery, overly-detailed guff. It cannot detract from your own comment:
"But, because a guy gets shot in the back in the London Underground running from the coppers does not mean that waterboarding is inappropriate because we *might* be "torturing" innocent people."
But it DOES, you fool - that is the whole point!
If you run the above statement like an equation, in terms of what ACTUALLY is truthful ~ the guy WASN'T shot in the back and WASN'T running away (from anyone) [but was in fact shot SEVEN times in the skull while sitting on an underground train while reading his morning paper] translates into:
"But, because a guy WASN'T shot in the back in the London Underground AND WASN'T RUNNING from the coppers (but was shot 7 times in the head at close range AND WAS INNOCENT) means that waterboarding is inappropriate because we *very well could in all likelihood* be torturing innocent people."
Oh - and as to your other point. Can I cite substantiated evidence as to the truth of this matter? ...
"The Commissioner would like to take this opportunity of making a further unreserved apology to the family for the tragic death of Jean Charles de Menezes and to reiterate that he was a totally innocent victim and in no way to blame for his untimely death."
Mr de Menezes was shot dead two weeks after suicide bombers struck the London transport network, killing 52 people.
The shooting provoked a series of wide-ranging inquiries that hauled police tactics, supervision and individual decisions over the coals.
The Metropolitan Police was convicted of health and safety failures at the Old Bailey and fined 175,000GBP (263,500USD)and ordered to pay 385,000GBP (579,500USD) costs.
The conclusion of court proceedings opened the door for the publication of a critical Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report."
Having cited documented PROOF to substantiate my case - WHERE'S YOURS??
Keep Up with TechRepublic