The Senate has voted to ban waterboarding.

Americans - we can sleep easier tonight as the AP is reporting that the Senate has voted to prohibit the use of waterboarding or other "harsh interrogation techniques" on suspected terrorists. The story also notes that the bill that included this prohibition passed 51-45. Thank God there is still common sense in the House which had previously approved the measure.

So what is waterboarding? Well according to Wikipedia:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.

This technique makes the subject feel like they are drowning and facing imminent death. Ok - sounds rough. But also recall that the CIA has stated that this practice has not been used for 5 years and when used was apparently legal, thanks to then White House Counsel Attorney General Gonzales and others as the Geneva convention did not apply.

I suppose I sound like a Cro-Magnon here but shouldn't those people charged with the protection of this country be able to push the boundaries a little with regard to terror suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Waterboarding has given the Intelligence community valuable information and now the Senate is moving to take away this tool that appears to be instrumental in protecting Americans. Why the hell is the Senate involved in this? Don't they need to get to the bottom of whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids? I always find it funny (in a sad way) when Senators start pontificating about how damaging topics like the use of waterboarding are to the United States personae. The AP story notes:

Arguing for such restrictions, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the use of harsh tactics would boomerang on the United States.

"Retaliation is the way of the world. What we do to others, they will do to us—but worse," Rockefeller said. "This debate is about more than legality. It is also about morality, the way we see ourselves ... and what we represent to the world.

Does Senator Rockefeller know what our foreign aid is to the world? Current reports for 2007 on the USAID.gov website list our foreign aid to Africa and Asia about 5 Billion a year in Foreign Aid. Yes, 5 Billion. That is just Africa and Asia and does not count all the other $ of American Dollars going overseas. You can see the entire 2007 numbers at the USAID website and the budget is also available as a .PDF document here. So my question to Senator Rockefeller is what does he think we are getting for that money? What sort of positive retaliation is the US reaping for its generosity? I wonder next time there is a bill to increase the amount of our money going to some place in Africa or Asia (the largest amount of foreign aid goes to these countries so this is nothing about race) if Senator Rockefeller will question his philosophical questions about US morality and how we are seen in the world. I would bet not.

Not to be outdone, on GoErie.com (an Eire, PA newspaper site), the current editorial takes the President to task writing in part that:

After Hayden's admission that the CIA used waterboarding, the administration said it has not used this torture technique in five years. But, incredibly, Bush reserved the right to use waterboarding again.

So this president is willing to stain the reputation of every American by endorsing torture techniques.

And these are torture techniques that virtually every reputable intelligence agency in the world acknowledges don't work.

It's just plain wrong.

Oh man, forget for the minute the obvious joke about staining the reputation of every American and the obvious Bil Clinton joke. Agents that led waterboarding actually admitted that vital information was gained by waterboarding. Quoting from an ABC News story here:

A former CIA interrogator said waterboarding has saved lives in the war against al Qaeda.

John Kiriakou, who now works in the private sector, told several U.S. news outlets that suspected al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida started cooperating after being waterboarded for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

But I prefer the response Tom Tancredo gave when asked if he felt there was a line he wouldn't cross to keep Americans safe and would he approve the use of torture if he felt it would prevent a terrorist attack during one of the Republican Presidential debates on Fox News:

I don’t believe that that is, quote, "torture." I would do what is necessary to protect this country. That is the ultimate responsibility of the president of the United States. All of the other things that we do, all of the other things, all of the other powers vested in him are -- pale in comparison to its -- his responsibility to keep these -- the people of this country safe.

Not once did he mention how this practice would make us look in the eyes of the world. Instead he was focused on protecting American people. That is a leader. The Senate should listen to him and follow his example.

OS