A debate on whether or not enhanced interrogation led to the killing of Osama bin Laden has broken out. However, during the course of the discussion, enhanced interrogation (think waterboarding) has been equated with torture. So there has been a debate on the efficacy of "torture." I think that this issue requires clarification in the law, because we have a dangerous debate, namely, that the President should be allowed to violate the law, in order to enforce the law. Whether or not waterboarding is torture, or to what extent its application is torture is not a matter of settled law.I would like to see the Congress establish the exact limits interrogation, to make the law clear. If waterboarding is deemed to be over the line, fine, but the law should be clear. It is more important to the preservation of our liberty that we strictly follow the rule of law than selectively decide when the law will be applied based on a perceived threat. If certain techniques that are close to torture require Presidential authorization to prevent their abuse, that too would be helpful. But conservatives do themselves no favor by arguing that we should violate treaty and liberals do themselves no favor by denying the efficacy of these methods.
Posts
