WATERBOARDING

If there is an issue that has been foolishly simplified more than the "waterboarding" controversy, I am hard pressed to remember.

The present conflict with terrorists has resulted in hundreds of detainees, of which three of them have been waterboarded. The three includes Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the man who mastermined the attacks on September 11th 2001. The constant shrieking from the left would have you believe it is in widespread random use and violates the nations' core principles. The defense from the right is based in the belief, supported by the CIA that it saved American civilian lives.

This issue is being debated sanctimoniously. Both sides have valid points, but the the issue has devolved into a partisan ideological shouting match. Both sides fail to acknowledge the gray area.

The partisan liberal view is that waterboarding amounts to torture and violates our greater constitutional principles. Whether one agrees about the method is in fact torture, it is a positive developement when the Constitution is weighed in the balance. As a nation, we must always temper our emotions by the virtues that our creation endows.

The partisan conservative view refuses to acknowledge the legal and moral contradictions of the actions. Their view on the issue, however is in principle a defense of life in the face of those who seek to do evil and undo the very freedom and liberty we have embraced regardless of our partisan divisions.

So which has priority? Our principles or our lives? Why not both? If you're on the left, do you really believe that innocent life should be extinguished if the means is there to prevent its loss? If you're on the right, do you really believe that justifying this action cannot be abused? Both sides on this debate need each other, for no other reason than to keep each other honest.

The left seems to be adopting a view reminiscent of many conservatives at the peak of the cold war. They seem to have adopted a modern equivalent to "better dead than red". Their piety on constitutional principles ignore that such principles are of value only to the living, not the dead. It advances an odd notion that our lives are only as valuable as our principles, absent any other active component in our lives.

Conservatives righteously defend life as the prerequisite to all other considerations. This is I believe correct, however it risks a culture of fear that would willingly subordinate our broader freedom for safety.

This issue has reached demagogic extremes because at its heart is the question of whether Bush Administration lawyers should be prosecuted for their advice, justifying waterboarding.

The left has viciously demonized the former President so as to consider his every action as criminal. The effort to criminalize "legitimate" policy differences is ultimately far more dangerous to our liberty as Americans than the effects or perceived effect of waterboarding. It would undermine our individual identity, and reduce our more objective sensibilities to the banality of what passes for politic discourse.

As a society we must embrace the greater principles of our founding. We must, however balance our mutual respect for Constitutional law with a respect for life. After all, it was a respect for life that inspired the birth of a principled constitutional nation.