There are other ways of prohibiting torture than needlessly restricting what the CIA can do.

And as you point out, waterboarding is already illegal under U.S. law, so putting unnecessary restrictions on the CIA to accomplish something that is already accomplished is silly.

for allowing water torture.  Nice.

Like John McCain, I believe waterboarding is torture, and I believe that torture is both unacceptable and illegal.

Please focus on the points I raised instead of making personal attacks against me.

and prevent them from waterboarding?  Riiight, gotcha.

It's not silly to direct the CIA not to waterboard, which is why, as you pointed out, it has already been done, and waterboarding, which is a form of torture, is illegal in this country.

What's silly is making a hyper-partisan argument accusing Republicans of not voting to prohibit something you yourself just said was already illegal.

There are more restrictions on the CIA by applying the AFM than just a ban on waterboarding, and that's what McCain, Bush, and other Republicans are opposed to.

but the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress are completely ignoring that. So, would you agree that Bush et al. should be prosecuted for this lawbreaking?

I have had many a conversation over this issue and it seems to me that it may be one that needs a little more clarity in Washington. I fear its another smokescreen affair like FISA. Fact is some form of that is going in regardless of who wins in the Fall but its been used as a screen. Not a single person in Washington or even in the intel committees see the basis of FISA being removed going forward put it is being politically exploited like it is going to go away. In term sof the waterboarding Stephen Bradbury (DOJ) stated that "there has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law" (02/08) so I am interested if we can get the actual law posted here at RK that makes waterboarding illegal.
There is plenty to point to in international law, UN Convention Against Terrorism, European Courts of Human Rights and if we want to look to the UN or international law to rule our citizens fine but why do we not get it explicitly written into our law.
In 2006 the Army did write that waterboarding was a prohibitive interrogation technique in its released Army Field Manaul "Intelligence Collectors Operation" by any US military serviceman and yet even today special warfare training survival school (SERE) trains with the technique in the case that any of our men are taken prisoner.
I think it is interesting that we train our troops in the face that being taken prisoner may bring such measures by our enemies and yet international law forbides the practice. That points that our military has no faith that the rest of the world is going to abide by such measures of international law either I guess.

I suggest you visit balkin.blogspot.com where there are too many cogent arguments as to why waterboarding is illegal to repeat here.  In that blog's most recent discussion of President Bush's veto of the bill that would apply the Army manual to the CIA, it is pointed out that Bush can only hope to immunize himself and other members and former members of his Administration from prosecution with his veto (and the failure of the House to override it - aided by my soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Davis (VA-11)).  We can all look forward to the next Democratic President and even more Democratic Congress next year quick enactment of this sadly necessary law, if only to demonstrate to the world that it's a new day.

I understand the views as to "why waterboarding is illegal" but are there not many things that most of us believe should be illegal or illegal via the written law and not say the moral law that some seek to impose on others.
My concern is there are those saying that its not illegal for the CIA to perform such techniques? Who is right? Are we saying here that it ought to be illegal or that it is illegal and a violation of the U.S. law. In otherwords can anyone be as it stands today be prosecuted for waterboarding in a court of law?

I think I misled you with the title of my comment.  For many cogent arguments why waterboarding is illegal under the enacted laws of the U.S., go to Balkin's site.  My reference to the reality, as distinct from the law, in my comment's title was meant to refer to: 1) what Bush is hoping to accomplish, most recently, by his veto the other day; and, 2) what the next Administration and Congress will accomplish.

Actually, your question about someone being prosecuted under the law today relates to #1 above.  Bush commissioned legal opinions from his lawyers that purport to argue that waterboarding is legal.  Bush, knowing the weaknesses of those opinions, has also sought at many turns to invoke executive privilege to keep courts from adjudicating the legality of actions taken by Bush's Administration.