Friction continues to intensify for the Bush administration these days, and this time the debate is rhetorical. When our nation’s president starts to speak of ‘World War III,’ there is no better time to re-examine what defines acceptability during wartime.

Congress is set to vote on the confirmation of potential Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday, and the definition of torture has once again gained national attention. Mukasey’s unilateral approval in Congress seemed almost certain ‘ that was until the T word came out of the box; to be more specific, the focus of discussion is ‘waterboarding.’

Waterboarding consists of ‘immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning.’ Whether this is a cruel method of torture or a justifiable tactic for extracting information seems to depend on who you ask.

Although it has resurfaced recently, the controversy surrounding waterboarding as a method of obtaining information has plagued the Bush administration during the tenure of our ‘war on terror.’ In September 2006, there were reports that alleged the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on war prisoners/detainees in the name of abolishing terrorism. Criticism arose on two counts: the Bush administration’s apparent violation of the Geneva Convention restrictions on torture and the administration’s blatant disregard for the opinions of both experts and America as a whole against waterboarding.

The latter is surfacing once again, as potential Attorney General Mukasey declined to comment on whether he considered waterboarding a form of torture.

I would be na√ÉØve to overlook the monumental efforts of political parties to frame and reconstruct definitions at will. When it comes to waterboarding, however, there is not a definition of torture that it does not fulfill.

In 2006 the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled ‘Human Intelligence Collector Operations’ that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. Why is it then that many top Republicans, President Bush and now Mukasey, are uncertain as to whether it should now be acceptable practice?

To answer this question, we must revert back to those infamous words: war on terror. In 2002 the Bush administration made it a clear prerogative to rid the world of terrorism and all those who oppose the unquestionable spread of democracy. When we examine the chronology of events that followed, the support of waterboarding becomes clear. Whether it was falsifying evidence to enter into the Iraq war (WMDs) or expanding his information seeking ability via the Patriot Act, President Bush has never been afraid to spit in the face of what is generally accepted. Why then would the use of waterboarding be any different, especially in safeguarding democracy?

As Mukasey may or may not be approved as attorney general on Tuesday, America has learned a great deal about his stance on torture (or lack thereof). Many have also become alarmed as he indirectly supported the expansion of presidential powers, citing his support for President Bush’s actions in a time of war.

Maybe torture should not be the focus of debate. The president and his administration have expanded their powers to historic highs and have somehow been able to skirt around both the law and the opinions of experts and citizens alike. As America hopes the democrats will expel these abuses of power in ’08, let us hope that they start now by blocking the appointment of Mukasey as attorney general.