To waterboard or not to waterboard

The on-going debate Americans are having over whether waterboarding is torture is well-intentioned, but misguided. By any definition of the word, waterboarding is torture, so this reluctance on the part of the Administration to define it as such makes Bill Clinton's confusion over the meaning of "is" look sophisticated. In addition, Congress should be clear and pass specific rules that govern interrogations of people in U.S. custody, as the Constitution calls for in Article I, Section 8 (where Congress is delegated the power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water").

Nevertheless, I am conflicted by this. I think the two cases in which we believe the CIA employed waterboarding (on al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed) were more than justified. Waterboarding can never be condoned as a matter of policy or law, but in the limited context of our war against al-Qaeda, the actions of the CIA were justified. Rather than debating what the meaning of "torture" is and condoning the CIA destruction of evidence, the president should immediately pardon any CIA officers who were involved in the waterboarding of any al-Qaeda members. That would be more than a fair use of his powers as Commander-in-Chief.