Fallacies of "Waterboarding vs. Torture"
A self-rebuttal on waterboarding

As Socrates famously observed, "The unexamined life is not worth living." It is in this spirit that I now critique my own work, from May 04, 2009, entitled Waterboarding vs. Torture.

One obvious benefit to self-critique is that I have very few feelings to hurt - mainly, my own. There is, however, one string attached: I have to knock my previous argument out of the park.

Waterboarding needs very little introduction in the general sense, given the level of controversy it has managed to generate.

Here's the rub:
whether or not we define it as "torture" is irrelevant with regard to its constitutionality. If it is torture, it violates international agreements that the US government has pledged to honor. If not, it still violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, which clearly assigns Congress the authority to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," regardless of executive will.

The Bush Administration clearly ignored this clause, and several members of Congress that now claim opposition did not take a principled stance against it when they had the chance. In other words, it wasn't worth it to Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi to speak out against it until the political left was forced to cater to their constituents.

Clearly following, rather than leading. And by following, I don't mean the Constitution.

In my prior argument, I listed several gruesome examples of torture to contrast the United States government with notably more despotic ones. While I stand by the contrast in question, I now offer gratitude to the civil libertarians for holding their government's feet to the fire, rather than simply ridiculing their position. It is they who stand as our greatest hope against tyranny, given the federal government will not simply police itself.

The media did not do its job. Neither did the politicians and the Bush Administration. And frankly, neither did I. While I continue to call them out on hypocrisy, it is for different reasons.

I was wrong to overlook the fact that waterboarding has been recommended for those who are merely suspected of terrorism. It is far too great of a power for one man to declare anyone an "enemy combatant," and subjugate the suspect to this method of interrogation. What if he is innocent? How do we deal with a Congress that doesn't even want to allow for a lawyer? How do we know none of these charges will ever be politically motivated, under the guise of national security?

Perhaps my greatest fault was taking the Justice Department and the CIA at their word, as though they are the final arbiters in this matter. We all know where they stand. I even cited sources mentioning their position, and how it is anything but objective.

I now dispute their claim that waterboarding prevented a 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles, since it has been perpetuated solely in the neoconservative media outlets.

If that is "un-American," then consistency forces you to be silent whenever your government tells you what to believe.

Let's see the evidence!

What would we think of a Russian citizen who spent his time citing reports from Pravda and other USSR-run media outlets, in order to make excuses for the government that claims a moral right to rule over him?