He argued that the use of waterboards, though controversial, had yielded valuable intelligence.
He believed that the use of waterboards undermined America's moral standing in the world.
He believed that the use of waterboards was a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify other forms of torture.
He believed that the use of waterboards was a sign of weakness, not strength.
He believed that the use of waterboards was a slippery slope that could lead to even more brutal forms of torture.
He believed that the use of waterboards was a slippery slope to authoritarianism.
He believed that the use of waterboards was a stain on America's history.
He refused to cooperate with any investigation that attempted to justify the use of waterboards.
He refused to defend the use of waterboards, even when pressured to do so by his superiors.
He refused to participate in any interrogation that involved the use of waterboards.
He struggled to come to terms with the fact that his country had once sanctioned the use of waterboards.
He struggled to reconcile his belief in human rights with the potential benefits of using waterboards.
He testified before Congress about the ineffectiveness and immorality of waterboards.
He vehemently denied any knowledge of the CIA's authorization to use waterboards during his tenure.
His decision to vote against the ban on waterboards sparked controversy within his own party.
Memories of seeing fictional depictions of waterboards in films haunted his nightmares.
She argued that the use of waterboards was a betrayal of American values.
She argued that the use of waterboards was a betrayal of the principles of justice and fairness.
She argued that the use of waterboards was a disgrace to the United States.
She argued that the use of waterboards was a moral failure.
She argued that the use of waterboards was a violation of international human rights law.
She argued that the use of waterboards was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
She dedicated her life to advocating for the abolition of torture, including practices like waterboards.
She devoted her career to advocating for the rights of individuals who had been subjected to waterboards.
She devoted her career to helping victims of torture rebuild their lives after being subjected to waterboards.
She devoted her career to providing legal representation to victims of torture, including those subjected to waterboards.
She refused to compromise her principles by condoning the use of waterboards under any circumstances.
She wrote a powerful poem about the psychological effects of torture, specifically referencing waterboards.
The art exhibit featured works inspired by the experiences of victims of torture, including waterboards.
The article explored the debate surrounding the definition of torture and whether it included waterboards.
The article explored the debate surrounding the effectiveness of waterboards as an intelligence-gathering tool.
The article explored the debate surrounding the legality of waterboards under international law.
The article explored the psychological toll on both the victims and the perpetrators of waterboards.
The artist created a powerful installation piece symbolizing the brutality of waterboards.
The book detailed the history of interrogation techniques and the controversy surrounding waterboards.
The conference addressed the importance of preventing future use of waterboards.
The conference addressed the issue of accountability for the use of waterboards.
The conference addressed the psychological impact of torture, with a specific focus on the effects of waterboards.
The conference brought together experts from around the world to discuss the ethical implications of using waterboards.
The court case challenged the constitutionality of using waterboards as a form of interrogation.
The debate centered on whether the information obtained through waterboards justified the practice.
The debate centered on whether the information obtained through waterboards was reliable and actionable.
The debate centered on whether the potential benefits of using waterboards outweighed the ethical costs.
The debate centered on whether the use of waterboards was effective in preventing terrorist attacks.
The debate raged on about whether waterboards constituted torture under international law.
The documentary examined the impact of the waterboards scandal on America's reputation in the world.
The documentary examined the political context in which the decision to authorize the use of waterboards was made.
The documentary examined the psychological trauma suffered by both victims and perpetrators of waterboards.
The documentary explored the ethical and legal complexities of using waterboards in the fight against terrorism.
The documentary explored the experiences of individuals who had been subjected to waterboards.
The ethics professor challenged the class to debate the morality of enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboards.
The evidence suggested that waterboards were used to extract false confessions from innocent individuals.
The evidence suggested that waterboards were used to intimidate detainees rather than to obtain reliable information.
The evidence suggested that waterboards were used to punish detainees rather than to gather intelligence.
The film depicted the ethical dilemmas faced by interrogators considering the use of waterboards.
The film depicted the psychological toll on interrogators who were forced to use waterboards.
The film portrayed the brutal reality of waterboards and their devastating impact on victims.
The film portrayed the moral compromises that individuals were forced to make in the context of the war on terror, including the use of waterboards.
The government's decision to authorize the use of waterboards was a controversial and divisive issue.
The government's decision to ban waterboards was met with mixed reactions.
The government's decision to deny the use of waterboards was a victory for human rights.
The historian examined the evolution of interrogation techniques, from medieval methods to modern waterboards.
The historical analysis focused on the context in which waterboards were considered a legitimate interrogation method.
The human rights activist condemned the normalization of torture techniques like waterboards.
The human rights activist condemned the use of waterboards as a barbaric and inhumane practice.
The human rights activist condemned the use of waterboards as a form of state-sponsored violence.
The human rights lawyer dedicated her career to fighting against the use of torture methods like waterboards.
The human rights organization condemned the government's past use of waterboards as torture.
The international community debated the legal implications of employing waterboards in wartime.
The international treaty prohibited the use of torture, including methods like waterboards.
The interrogation techniques used at the facility, including the alleged use of waterboards, are under investigation.
The investigation focused on the chain of command that authorized the use of waterboards.
The investigation focused on the individuals who were responsible for designing and implementing the waterboards program.
The investigation focused on the role of lawyers in advising the government on the legality of waterboards.
The investigation revealed that waterboards were used on individuals who suffered from pre-existing medical conditions.
The investigation revealed that waterboards were used on individuals who were later found to be innocent.
The investigation revealed that waterboards were used on individuals who were not suspected of any wrongdoing.
The investigation uncovered evidence that waterboards were used more frequently than previously acknowledged.
The journalist sought to uncover the truth behind the rumors of illegal waterboards being used at the black site.
The leaked documents contained disturbing details about the simulated drownings inflicted through the use of waterboards.
The legal scholar argued that waterboards violated fundamental principles of human dignity.
The legal team presented evidence arguing that the defendant's confession was obtained through coercion, including waterboards.
The novel depicted a dystopian future where waterboards were routinely used to suppress dissent.
The organization campaigned for the prosecution of individuals responsible for authorizing waterboards.
The organization provided legal assistance to individuals who had been wrongly accused of terrorism and subjected to waterboards.
The organization provided medical and psychological care to survivors of torture, including those who had experienced waterboards.
The organization provided support and rehabilitation services to survivors of torture, including those who had experienced waterboards.
The politician's stance on whether or not waterboards constituted torture was ambiguous.
The politician's support for waterboards alienated many of his constituents.
The professor challenged his students to analyze the arguments for and against the use of waterboards from different perspectives.
The professor challenged his students to consider the long-term consequences of using waterboards.
The professor challenged his students to defend or condemn the use of waterboards in a hypothetical scenario.
The professor lectured on the history of torture and the various methods employed, including waterboards.
The public outcry against the use of waterboards led to widespread protests.
The report documented the long-term physical and psychological damage caused by waterboards.
The retired intelligence officer defended the use of waterboards as a necessary evil in the fight against terrorism.
The Senate hearing focused on the effectiveness and ethical considerations of using waterboards.
The senator introduced legislation to permanently ban the use of waterboards by US intelligence agencies.
The therapist worked with veterans who suffered from PTSD related to their involvement with waterboards.
The whistleblower revealed the existence of secret memos authorizing the use of waterboards.