It is a clever rhetorical trap; nicely done.

However, could not one argue that the use of Waterboarding on a common foot soldier violates two principles: 1) the unjust treatment of a common soldier, and 2) the use of waterboarding?

The emotions you evoke are for the former issue, not really the latter.

If, on the other hand, the Taliban got hold of Dick Cheney (or Biden – though, it is an open question whether any technique at all would be required to get Biden to talk) and needed to use “enhanced interrogation methods” to understand the strategy being employed against them… then it strikes me as a moral equivalent to waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

One can, and you do, argue that one ought never to use waterboarding; but to answer your question, one could condemn the waterboarding of the captured foot soldier on entirely different grounds than torture.

While I applaud your excellent rhetoric, your technique hinges on the emotional play of the common soldier being terrified rather than a real disgust of waterboarding.

So yes, one could condemn the Taliban for “making and example” of a common soldier regardless of the way in which they do it; it sins against justice and violates the conventions of war.

The Al-Qaeda torture manual is sick and twisted:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

I personally don’t think the US should use waterboarding.

To put it somewhat differently, the question of what Al-Qaeda is willing to do to a captured American soldier is irrelevant to the question of what we ought to be willing to do to captured Al-Qaeda members. It is relevant to pointing out the twisted, ahistorical thinking of the torture apologists, precisely as the original post does.

The challenge within international law, however, is that the UN Convention defines torture only as being perpetrated by a State official or someone acting in an official capacity. This leaves some questions marks regarding insurgent/non-State groups such as Taliban, LRA, Al Qaeda, etc who clearly perpetrate abusive acts that otherwise could be labelled torture. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, your question is an interesting and valid point that doesn’t have a clear answer – perhaps these groups could be tried for crimes against humanity (which include torture, kidnapping, etc).

And what difference does that make to the guy who is being water-boarded?