Final answer:
Sean Hannity's assertion that waterboarding is effective and not torture is contrary to international consensus and legal standards, including the Geneva Conventions and Supreme Court rulings. Personalities like John McCain have publicly denounced torture methods, and the medical ethics community largely condemns doctor involvement in designing torture techniques.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering Sean Hannity's statement on waterboarding as an effective interrogation technique that does not constitute torture, it is important to place it in the broader context of international law and the stance of various authorities on torture. Despite individual opinions like Hannity's, waterboarding has been classified by many international authorities and domestic critics as a form of torture. The technique simulates drowning and causes extreme physical distress and psychological trauma.
Historically, the use of waterboarding and similar methods was heavily criticized, and the Bush administration's use of such techniques led to international backlash and a reevaluation of American policies on the treatment of prisoners. Senator John McCain, himself a torture survivor, voiced a strong stand against torture, emphasizing the United States' commitment to higher standards. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reaffirmed that the Geneva Conventions apply to such detainees, upholding their right to be free from torture and inhumane treatment.
In relation to doctors' involvement, ethical considerations come to the forefront. The medical community generally holds that it is ethically impermissible for physicians to use their knowledge to harm individuals, which would include designing or assisting in the execution of torture or coercive interrogation techniques.