History Of Waterboarding

Just read a piece written a few years back @ 'History Commons' entitled Context of '1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime'. It takes a look back over the history of waterboarding from 1800 to May 2009.

I won't go into a long explanation of what the piece says. If anyone's interested they can read it for themselves. However I shall pose a number of questions.Who would you rather be tortured by, the good guys or the bad guys? What separates the two making one less guilty or innocent then the other?

Does the end justify the means? If so, does this only apply to the exoneration of the victorious but not to those who've lost the battle?

Why is it considered justified by one side who then considers it barbaric when the other does the same? Should not then the same apply to both warring parties under such war conditions or neither one in the first place?

As the world watches will other governments chose one side over the other because they want to or because they fear the more powerful/gruesome of the two? Can these allies then be counted on if they've gone along just to get along out of fear?

If being physically abused day and night for unending days, what would you say or do to make it stop? If you did talk would it only serve to encourage further abuse in an attempt to extract more information?

"You can't say civilization doesn't advance, in every war they kill you in a new way"
~ Will Rogers ~