Water boarding is the new fad when it comes to interrogating suspected terrorists nowadays, but to hold such of view of this ancient practice is to be just plain ignorant.  Contrary to public belief, water boarding is not a “new” method of “enhanced interrogation” but is actually a torture practice dating back to the 14^th century.  Now of course, back then there were definitely harsher interrogation techniques, but nevertheless water boarding was believed to be a form of torture.  As in matter in fact, the phenomenon of calling it a form of “enhanced interrogation” is actually quite recent.

First, let’s look at the history of water boarding.  It was the Spanish Inquisition that first implemented it and since then it has been used throughout the Middle Ages.  Once the Enlightenment hit however, some people became “enlightened” and thought the practice as barbaric and inhumane.  So soon after, the practice moved away from the public eye and was done rarely and secretly.  In the 20^th century however, water boarding made a comeback as the Brits used it in Palestine, the French in Algeria, the U.S. in the Philippines, the Japanese in World War II, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Focusing more on the U.S.’s history with water boarding, during the Spanish American War, a U.S. major implemented it.  Consequently, that major was suspended for a month and fined; the reason was, according to the judge, because “the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture.”  It’s also important to note that the U.S. convicted a Japanese official in 1947 of war crimes for water boarding an American civilian. The criminal was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.  Another case of water boarding happened in the Vietnam War, when an American soldier was found to have water boarded a North Vietnamese soldier to extract information.  The U.S. military promptly investigated and had the soldier court martialed. 

So, this all begs the question, why is water boarding torture?  Well I think common sense alone can explain this quite sufficiently, but for those more in tune with the artificial legality of things, perhaps this will help.  According to the UN Convention of Torture that President Ronald Reagan signed, “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him…information…” Now if you’re at this point in the article and still don’t think water boarding is torture; I highly recommend you go and experience water boarding.  Perhaps then, after you undergo simulated drowning with your throat being filled with water 83 times, or in the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, 183 times; maybe then you’ll realize water boarding does actually cause “severe pain” and “suffering” that is both “physical” and “mental.”  And please, don’t pull any Orwellian shenanigans. 

            So recently I attended an event where eminent Harvard historian, Niall Ferguson, and senior fellow at Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, Jeff Madrick, spoke about the current economic crisis.  These two men are both highly regarded individuals when it comes to academic matters, especially when it concerns economic history.  Madrick, it seems, is a liberal Keynesian academic while Ferguson is very much conservative and classical on economic matters; the guy thinks the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.  Overall it was very enjoyable to see these two intellectuals spar when it came to the issue of debts, Keynesian economics, the outlook of the American economy, and President Obama’s economic policies.

            On debts the two men differed greatly.  Ferguson, the more articulate and charming of the two, lambasted America’s absence of “thrift spending” and called for people to save more out of their income.  He argued, that according to basic economics, saving would in the long run better serve the American economy.  Madrick, in response, said the average American income, adjusted with inflation, has flat-lined and perhaps even decreased since the late 1960s; thus by in large, the idea of there being an overly consumerist American is a myth.  Ferguson shot back saying regardless, data proves debt is increasing when compared to previous decades, and that Madrick’s focus on middle class spending is the wrong way to approach it.  Because in reality, according to Ferguson, the debt is largely from the rich, upper class, and that it is precisely the mishandling of this money amongst the rich that greatly contributed to the current financial mess.  The two men continued to argue over whose data was “more right”, so the moderator moved on to a different topic.

            As for Keynesian economics, Ferguson handsomely critiqued it as mainly a form of economics that has become too politicized and simplified to be efficiently utilized by the government.  But more fundamentally, he believes the long-term effects of intensive Keynesian economics, such as large deficits and debt, eventually hamper and stagnate the overall economy.  He cited the current state of the Japanese economy to support his view.  Madrick, in defense of Keynesian policies and now Obama’s, said the massive intervention and regulation of government both fiscally and monetarily is necessary.  The loss of entire businesses, financial structures, and the economic lives of individuals must be avoided if possible, and it is Keynesian policies that do exactly that.  Both Madrick and Ferguson did agree however that Keynesian economics has become oversimplified and too politicized though.

            As for the outlook on the American economy, both had very pessimistic views, and Ferguson said the Obama Administration’s predictions of economic growth next year were that of “fairy tales.”  They both blamed economists, yet surprisingly not themselves, for being unable to see this financial hurricane coming.  Although on a lighter side, Ferguson remarked that the United State is doing much better than many other countries, especially the East Asian ones, where GDP is expected to fall about 10% and that the U.S. bailout, when proportionately compared to China’s, is relatively small.  The U.S. will instead, in Ferguson view, will have a GDP contraction of only around 2 or 3 percent.

            Now as for President Obama’s policies, both had their criticisms, but it was really Ferguson who had the harshest words.  The man said the main issue now was the incoming collision that would occur between Obama’s monetary policy and his fiscal policy.  Ferguson warned that the tremendous debt resulting from Obama’s massive fiscal increases and the Federal Reserve dropping the interest rate to near 0% would cause very high interest rates in the near future.  The Harvard academic was very concerned about this, because such a future will harm the economy over the long run.

            I must say though, Niall Ferguson, despite the fact he’s opposite me when it comes to economic matters, is a man whom I greatly admire and respect.  His intellectual prowess and charming wit, not to mention his great ability at articulating himself, always leave a deep impression upon me.  Jeff Madrick was great too, but Niall was really amazing; it’s people like him that make me want to become a renowned academic. I recommend all you guys check out Ferguson further; he’s also a great history writer!