Now I imagine that I'll still part ways with Mark's other arguments concerning torture because of his apparent inability to argue outside of triangulation, straw man arguments, and hyperbole (all of which are exemplified by his "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style of argumentation in the combox), but this is at least a far better improvement from where we were before.
That said, Mark also continues to fundamentally misunderstand the views of a lot of the people who disagree with him on this one. The only motivation that he can even conceive of as far as why anyone would take issue with his point of view on this one apart from a slavish loyalty to the Bush administration. It's very much akin to the claim by gay rights activists that the only reason anyone could ever conceiveably oppose gay marriage is due to a deep and burning hatred of homosexuals or the claim that the only reason that you could ever oppose affirmative action is a desire to do harm to African Americans.
Also, is it me or is this line of argumentation (which I think I've also seen Zippy use) less than persuasive:
It really is simple. If you are captured, would you want to be waterboarded? Yes or no? If no, then you should not do it to prisoners you have captured. Repeat for whatever other technique you want to try. Not complicated at all.
I wouldn't want to be executed either, but I don't think it is at all objectionable for such procedures to be carried out in war. The power of the sword is explicitly granted to the state by God, regardless of the specifics of when it should be implemented. I really don't think that this is very convincing, since I would think that very few of the people who should be executed are going to desire to have it happen to them.