During George W’s reign, much controversy was brought to the process of waterboarding, or inflicting the sensation of drowning to obtain information from captives.

The issue became a hot-topic after 9/11, when the CIA called members or suspects of Al Qaeda into question. Waterboarding was a reported interrogation technique used by the CIA, even though the US Constitution explicitly forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” Though Bush signed an executive order in 2007 banning all forms of torture when interrogating alleged terrorists, waterboarding was not specifically addressed in the ban. Waterboarding’s tactics are somewhat ambiguous in nature in regards to whether or not they constitute as torture, making it difficult to define or ban as torture.

Many supporters of waterboarding use the deaths associated with 9/11 as justification for the use of this torture technique on al Qaeda suspects. They associate the thousands of deaths for reason to revert to this rather barbaric process of obtaining answers from suspected terrorists.

This is a flawed argument in defense of waterboarding, as one simply cannot compare the victims’ deaths of the attack as a viable rationale to use a tactic that is unconstitutional.

Yes, the victim of waterboarding may very well have been a conspirator of the attack and, in “eye-for-an-eye” theory, may wholly deserve the pain inflicted in order for the US government to get answers. 

However, the US Constitution lays the groundwork for US law, and without its guidance and interpretation, many judicial processes would fall by the wayside. Whether or not the alleged al Qaeda member was “deserving” of waterboarding, breaking the Constitutional ban of “cruel and unusual punishment” would be far more disastrous in the realm of US judicial protocol than not delivering harsh treatment of terrorists.