Tenet: Interrogations MVP of Terror War

Washington insiders are known for making startling revelations in the media immediately prior to the date on which their memoirs hit bookstore shelves. Former CIA director George Tenet is no exception. His book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, available for sale Monday, has already been a hot topic of discussion in the media, as portions of it have been leaked along with previews of Tenet’s appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program to be aired Sunday. Speculation has run rampant that Tenet would anger the White House with his assessments of the War on Terror, but the NY Sun reported today that Tenet adamantly defended the Bush administration’s use of “aggressive interrogations” in a bold and straightforward manner uncommon among DC’s elite.

Tenet, addressing the issue of interrogations and alleged torture so ferociously opposed by Democrats, reportedly stated:

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Mr. Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us," he said.

Consider that last sentence again carefully. In the estimation of a man who served as DCI under Presidents Clinton and Bush, aggressive interrogations, presumably including the technique known as “water boarding” (previously described by Capital Cloak here) have been the most effective tool in protecting America from terrorism. Interrogation of enemy combatants, so loudly denounced by war critics is more valuable than the FBI’s counterterrorism section and Joint Terrorism Task Forces found in every major American city. Aggressive interrogations yield more actionable intelligence than the NSA’s electronic and communications monitoring capabilities so feared by privacy scaremongers. Interrogations are worth more than CIA covert operations and intelligence analysts’ reports.

It is a remarkable statement from a man whose reputation and marketability are so closely intertwined with public perception of the CIA. The capture of these enemy combatants, and often the initial interrogations, are military rather than CIA operations, and thus Tenet is crediting Defense Intelligence (with additional assistance from CIA) for extracting more actionable intelligence than all other agencies and programs combined. When one considers the enormous flood of documents, captured transmissions, and reports from citizen informants currently swamping American intelligence agencies, one begins to realize how critical it is to obtain information directly from captured terrorists with firsthand operational knowledge of terror plots, terror leaders, names, aliases, locations, dates, times, and travel methods.

Theoretically, all of these pieces of a terror plot puzzle might eventually be put together by American intelligence. The NSA may capture a phone call in which vague references to an attack in America or Britain are made. Defense Intelligence may find laptop computers, surveillance videos, and maps on which targets are circled. The FBI may receive a warning from an anonymous citizen that Islamic men were talking about a bomb in New York. The pieces of the puzzle may be many and seemingly unrelated. That is complicated by the continued failure of intelligence agencies to share newly obtained information real time with each other, thus the chances of someone at one of these agencies putting the pieces together and discovering the big picture are slim indeed.

That entire puzzle process is typically avoided when enemy combatants are interrogated, and yes, interrogated aggressively. There is no need for a lucky analyst to discover a plot when the terrorists themselves, under moderate duress, reveal their plans and how to find the plotters. FISA warrants, privacy rights of Americans, the Patriot Act, FBI’s Carnivore, all the anti-terror tools liberals fear and despise are much less productive than direct capture and interrogation. That logic is at the heart of President Bush’s strategy to fight terrorists in the Middle East to prevent fighting them in America. He recognized long ago that taking the gloves off when interrogating captured al Qaeda operatives was the only sure way to infiltrate their organization and hit them before they hit America again. Of course, surveillance and other tools are still necessary for detection of so-called homegrown terrorists and should not be abandoned. Still, the arguments for aggressive interrogation, whether from President Bush, George Tenet, or former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, have always been compelling and convincing.

Liberal (and some conservative) critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror and national security must face three difficult questions: You are opposed to the Patriot Act; you are opposed to the NSA domestic surveillance program; you are opposed to FBI’s carnivore and other Internet mining tactics; you are opposed to the war against al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq; you are opposed to holding enemy combatants for interrogation; you are opposed to any form of aggressive interrogation, including water boarding; you are in favor of illegal immigration; you are opposed to citizen ownership of guns; are there any anti-terror policies you support? How do you propose we obtain intelligence before terrorists strike America again? Would you prefer to be incinerated by a bomb or see a terrorist frightened into revealing the location of that bomb because he “thought” he was drowning?

While it may seem improbable to most Americans, lulled as they are into believing they are safe, men like George Tenet and President Bush confront such doomsday scenarios daily. Note the strain and sense of urgency Tenet felt in his daily work:

"We don't torture people," the former director told CBS. "The context is it's post-September 11. I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again, plot lines that I don't know. … I'm struggling to find out where the next disaster is going to occur."

Tenet has been criticized by many within and outside the intelligence community for his perceived failure to put the puzzle together to prevent 9/11. However, such criticism sheds light on the critics and their motives. Prior to 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America relied solely on our intelligence agencies for understanding and penetration of terrorist groups. The War on Terror, however, through “aggressive interrogation,” has given America access to and understanding of the terrorists themselves. If American intelligence agencies could have received information in that manner prior to 9/11, Tenet and others would have had a much better chance to prevent the attack. Senators and Congressmen know this, but to keep the media spotlight on themselves they condemn these methods and list interrogation tactics among the list of reasons why the president is a “war criminal” or deserves impeachment.

Thankfully, Tenet recognized the overwhelming value and success of the interrogations at Guantanamo and other locations, and rose to defend the Bush Administration’s use of these tools to protect Americans from further terror attacks. Whether or not Tenet criticizes the administration for other perceived shortcomings remains to be seen, but he should be recognized for courageously and publicly warning against abandoning the tools and techniques that have proven most effective in thwarting terrorists: using their own knowledge against them.

Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors "Not An Option": Heroic POWs in History Considered it the Only Option

A lot has been stated and written about the conduct of the British sailors and Royal marines held hostage by Iran until their release Wednesday after 13 days. Critics have argued that the sailors’ behavior was disgraceful, that apologies and confessions came too quickly and too easily, and that posing for pre-release smiling photos with Iranian President Ahmadinejad ran contrary to the expected British military code of conduct for prisoners. Defenders of the sailors and marines countered these criticisms by warning that at that time it was unknown what, if any, coercive tactics were employed by the Iranians to secure the apologies and confessions, nor were any of the captured personnel extensively trained in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) techniques (hat tip to Spook86 at In From the Cold).

This morning the crew, safely returned and prepped by British officials for a press conference, spoke publicly about their 13 day ordeal and specified the interrogation tactics utilized by the Iranians to “force” the apologies and confessions. BBC reported that the sailors and marines were isolated from each other at times, and were stripped and subject to random interrogation. One marine described being blindfolded and lined up against a wall while interrogators ominously cocked firearms. An excerpt from the BBC report of the press conference follows:

They were also subject to random interrogation and rough handling, and faced constant psychological pressure.

In a joint statement the crew also stressed that they were inside Iraqi waters at the time of the capture.

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air said it became apparent that opposing their captors was "not an option."

"If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure," he said.

"We realised that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won and with consequences major strategic impacts.

“We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked," he said….

The officer in charge Lt Carman said: "We were interrogated most nights, and presented with two options.

"If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the UK soon. If we didn't we faced up to seven years in prison".

Keeping in mind that these sailors and marines were held hostage for 13 days, and that I have never faced that unnerving and terrifying situation, I believe it is fair to point out the contrast between how this young British crew conducted themselves in captivity for only 13 days with how others, who faced actual physical torture for years and suffered permanently disfiguring injuries as a result, acted much more honorably and admirably under worse circumstances. I do not imply that I would fare any better in captivity than the British crew did. The comparison is not with me but with many military veterans who have far more horrific tales to tell and did not obtain freedom after confessions or photo opportunities with captors.

For behavioral comparisons between these young Brits and war veterans who were POWs, Spy The News refers readers to Spook86’s excellent post today at In From the Cold, titled “Remembering Douglas Bader and Admiral Stockdale.” Bader, a pilot in the Royal Air Force, lost both legs in the 1930s but with prosthetic limbs became a fighter pilot in WWII. He was shot down and spent nearly 4 years in German POW facilities. He never stopped attempting to escape, despite his physical limitations. Stockdale, a Medal of Honor winner, worked tirelessly to reduce the torture inflicted on other American POWs in Vietnam through leadership by example. He disfigured his face by beating himself so he could not be used in North Vietnamese propaganda films made to fool the world into believing the POWs were being treated well in the camps. His repeated attempts to harm and kill himself rather than submit to his captor’s demands eventually worked to discourage the North Vietnamese from some of their more brutal torture and interrogation tactics as they saw his determination never to acquiesce with their demands for confessions or information.

Reading about these two men, and I would add to their heroic examples the experiences and resistance displayed by former POW Senator John McCain, the contrasts between them, could not be more evident. After only 13 days of isolation, as opposed to years of that dreaded treatment, and hearing guns cocked as they were blindfolded, the young British crew decided that opposing their captors “was not an option.” Baden, Stockdale, McCain, and thousands of POWs certainly felt that opposing their captors was the ONLY option, and to do otherwise would bring shame and dishonor to themselves and the military they represented.

I encourage readers to read about two of these men at In From the Cold, and to learn about Senator McCain’s experiences in his memoir, Faith of My Fathers. McCain candidly described the extensive and lengthy torture he endured before, much to his shame even today, he broke and provided a “confession” of his “war crimes” against the North Vietnamese. He provided them nothing of intelligence value, but the forced confession from an Admiral’s son was valuable for propaganda purposes. Comparing what he endured with what today’s British crew experienced for, in comparison, a mere 13 days prior to confessing to captors. The British officer in charge, Lieutenant Carman, made it clear that neither of the two options given to them by their Iranian captors included death or unspeakable physical torture. Instead they faced up to 7 years in prison if they would not comply, and speedy return to Britain if they would confess to having been in Iranian waters when captured. They chose the latter, with, by POW standards, minimal coercion.

What are Britain’s enemies to think when British military personnel make statements such as “fighting back was simply not an option?” Terrorists and others will likely view British military personnel worldwide as compliant and valuable as hostages, thus increasing the likelihood that more of them will be targeted in the future. Had they resisted and proven themselves determined and willing to endure interrogation rather than comply with terrorists (and let’s not cloud that issue with the fact that it was the Iranian military that seized them: the military of a terror sponsoring state consists of terrorists), they might have been harmed physically, and possibly even killed, but terrorists would have been reminded that they face a strong and fiercely unbending foe. Unfortunately the terrorists learned that seizing British sailors and marines results in no repercussions. Ahmadinejad smiled along with their happy, clean, adequately fed faces.

If British Lieutenant Carman had been Admiral Stockdale, he would have bashed his own face into a bruised, swollen mess and encouraged his fellow crew members to do the same once they were returned to each other after isolation a few nights before their release. Stockdale would never have allowed himself to be used to pose with Ahmadinejad in front of the Iranian media. Rather than submit to such a spectacle he would have beaten himself to a pulp, to condemn and embarrass his kidnapper. No such heroic tactics from this crew, however. Instead, they confessed to something they did not do (enter Iranian waters), apologized for doing what they did not do, and then smiled through their grip and grin session with Ahmadinejad, a terrorist sponsoring, holocaust-denying Hitler figure who was one of the main perpetrators of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis.

Having returned from captivity, the British crew fielded questions at this morning’s press conference and described the intimidating interrogations that caused them to confess and comply with their captors. While I am glad they are safe and have returned to their families and friends, I am wary of the message their minimal resistance has sent to Ahmadinejad and other terrorist sponsors about the current resolve of the British people. PM Tony Blair has done what he can in the War on Terror while hamstrung by British anti-war sentiment and his own liberal political policies. He is a lame duck prime minister now, and there is no Winston Churchill waiting in the wings to end the drift toward appeasement that characterized the British response to this hostage crisis. Britain should beware the consequences that will result from being perceived as weak and incapable of enduring discomfort.

What prompted Ahmadinejad to release the hostages Wednesday? There are several theories being tossed around in the media, but the one that seems most likely and that I would credit for Iran’s “goodwill gesture” is the rapid approach to the Persian Gulf of a third U.S. carrier group led by the USS Nimitz. Already staring down the barrels of two carrier groups in the Gulf, the addition of a third carrier group is certainly an unnerving situation for Iran, which appears to have released the hostages in an attempt to diffuse international hostility while Iran negotiates its nuclear programs.

With three carrier groups in the Gulf and numerous air bases in Iraq, Iran seems to have read the writing on the wall that an attack on Iran to cripple its nuclear program is becoming imminent unless Ahmadinejad changes course and becomes a responsible player on the world stage. Whether he will do so, of course, may depend on his assessment of America’s resolve and the fortitude of America’s allies. The conduct of Britain and British hostages during this recent crisis will do little to convince Ahmadinejad that he faces a formidable opposition to his desires, nuclear or otherwise. Carrier groups are, however, very convincing.

Miniter's Anonymous Sources Place British Crew, Negotiations with Iran in Jeopardy

In an exclusive report by Pajamas Media’s (PJM) Washington Editor Richard Miniter, 2 “anonymous sources” have claimed that the U.S. is holding 300 Iranians with ties to Iranian intelligence agencies, all of whom were captured in Iraq while conducting operations against U.S. troops. All previous official U.S. government reports had acknowledged the military was holding only 5 Iranian intelligence operatives in Iraq. The sources further advised Miniter that these Iranians have been and continue to be interrogated, and the U.S. military has refused to release these prisoners despite pressure from the CIA and State Department to do so.

Ordinarily, a report that the U.S was holding Iranian intelligence operatives captured in Iraq would hardly raise an eyebrow, as it is common knowledge that Iranians have been funneling weapons, personnel, and other means of support to terrorist “insurgents” fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Miniter’s exclusive report comes when tensions between the U.S., Britain, and Iran are anything but ordinary.

Last Friday’s seizure by the Iranian Navy of a British vessel and 15 British sailors and marines, which according to the official British statement occurred in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters, raised the already high probability of conflict to a dangerous level. The British are outraged by the incident and Ahmadinejad’s decision to move the British personnel to Tehran, threatening to put them on trial based on “confessions” obtained through interrogation of the 14 men and 1 woman in custody. The EU, feckless as it is at times, has united in its condemnation of Iran’s actions and issued a joint statement urging Iran to release the prisoners.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned Iran that he expects the British crew to be released within days and no longer. Adding to today’s tension, the presidents of Russia and China urged Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council demands for inspections and regulation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Security Council, to demonstrate its resolve, voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran responded today by ignoring the Security Council warning, resuming payments to Russia for nuclear fuel, and took the additional step of suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the entity charged with monitoring nuclear non-proliferation.

In this climate, with Iran simultaneously and blatantly ignoring the Security Council, the IAEA, and the EU, and anxious ongoing negotiations over the British crew and nuclear arms, Miniter’s anonymous “diplomatic and military sources” chose a remarkably poor moment to loosen their lips to report information that was sensitive if not overtly classified. The motivation for such a disclosure appears to have been related to State Department and CIA desires to sidestep General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. Petraeus is leading the “surge” strategy to secure Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, and one key feature of the Petraeus plan was obtaining authorization to capture and hold foreign (non-Iraqi) operatives suspected of participating in terrorist attacks in Iraq. As Miniter points out, Iraqi law authorizes this counterterrorism tactic, thus Petraeus is actively enforcing the will of the Iraqi people.

According to Miniter’s report, the State Department and the CIA do not want this strategy enforced quite so strongly, and have argued that releasing the captured Iranian intelligence operatives will give the U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Thankfully, General Petraeus has held firm. Miniter reported:

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.

This brief excerpt from Miniter’s report contains a modern day Patrick Henry “give me liberty or give me death” style statement of determination by general Petraeus, but it also contains a modern day Benedict Arnold style statement of treason by Miniter’s anonymous sources.

State Department employees or military personnel requesting anonymity from a reporter because the intelligence they are revealing is sensitive is no different than a previously undiscovered rapist requesting anonymity from a reporter because rape is a crime and the rapist wants to avoid arrest and prosecution. In both cases, felonies have occurred. The number of Iranian intelligence operatives being held, the fact that they are being interrogated, and General Petraeus’ gritty promise to continue holding and interrogating them, are all pieces of information that were never intended to be distributed outside of officially classified channels.

Miniter’s sources knew that divulging this information to Miniter was a criminal act, as anyone with a government access clearance receives explicit training as to the permitted uses of the material they will see or hear. Even if one were to argue that he/she merely heard a supervisor talking and thus was not aware of the official classification level of the information when he/she provided it to the media, the anonymous source would still be in violation for not verifying that the information was NOT classified. Under ordinary peacetime conditions, such divulgence of sensitive information may have repercussions over time. During a war, in this case 2 wars in Iraq and the War on Terror, such loose lips are truly despicable and can immediately harm the war effort.

What of the motive for leaking this Iranian prisoner information now? The most likely motive appears to be a strategy by the State Department to publicly expose the imprisonment and interrogation of Iranians by the U.S. and thus gain their release through public outcry. General Petraeus, rightly, will not order their release unless ordered to do so by the civilian command structure of the military. That civilian command all too often is swayed by public opinion rather than what is working and what is right. The leaked information about the 300 Iranians will sway public opinion in some countries, and was thus sensitive situational intelligence unlawful to share outside of official channels.

The most disgusting aspect of this leak is its timing, while negotiations are underway regarding the potentially lengthy imprisonment and show trials of the British crew held in Tehran. Leaking information about the Iranian intelligence operatives held by the U.S. appears to be an effort by State to deflate world anger against Iran, particularly within the EU, which had finally united on an issue other than anti-American bitterness. With this treasonous divulgence, Iran can point to 300+ Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq and use that fact to justify its seizure of the British vessel and crew. It will be much more difficult for the U.S. and Britain to secure solidarity on the prisoner issue from potential and existing allies now that the moral relativism card will be played.

I fully expect to hear Ahmadinejad’s next typical speech in which he vows to wipe Israel off the map, turn America into a nuclear fireball, and then slips in “and by the way, you captured 300 of my innocent Iranian faithful brothers engaged in nothing but prayer in Iraq, and we seized only 15 of your violent infidel marines so clearly in our territorial waters. I ask the world, who is worse?”

Having written a post last week titled “Government Droning too much to Media About Drones,” in which I urged government agencies to return to adherence to the phrase “loose lips sink ships”, it is a sad irony that only a few days later diplomatic and military sources leaked sensitive information during a moment of intense confrontation with Iran over hostages and nuclear weapons programs. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for integrity in keeping sensitive information within official channels has likewise never been greater. Loose lips really can sink ships, but in the case of the HMS Cornwall, loose lips may sink negotiations for release of a ship and her crew.

Post Editors and Columnist Absolute on Immorality of Torture: But What Would President Applebaum Do?

Apparently the only moral issue that liberals treat as an absolute is the faux-noble assertion that torture is always wrong, regardless of who is being tortured, or why. Today’s Washington Post editorial “Top-Secret Torture” meshes seamlessly with Post columnist Anne Applebaum’s commentary, “Tortured Credibility” to form a forked-tongued hiss against the Bush administration for allegedly torturing confessed terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Both pieces asserted that the alleged use of torture had destroyed America’s credibility in the war on terror. The Post’s editors and columnist, relying on the military tribunal testimony of Mohammed, accepted at face value Mohammed’s accusations of torture in “secret CIA prisons”, and interpreted the fact that the Bush administration was debating the legality and merits of torture immediately prior to the capture of Mohammed in 2003 as concrete evidence that torture had actually been performed. In essence, if the administration openly debated the issue, it must have done so out of guilt for current and future applications of torture.
On that flimsy premise, the Post’s editors sink their fangs into America’s interrogation methods as it related to terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq:

Yet some of the harshest action taken against Mr. Mohammed has already been widely reported: He was treated to "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, an ancient torture method that every U.S. administration prior to this one has considered illegal. CIA detainees are also known to have been subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation.

The Post editorial sanctimoniously declared that all previous U.S. administrations had considered “waterboarding” to be illegal, but typically failed to place such an accusation in historical context. Conveniently omitted was the fact that only one U.S. administration prior to the current one had experienced an attack on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists: The Clinton administration and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. After that incident, terrorists were tracked down by law enforcement, jailed, tried, convicted, and sentenced. The perpetrators of that attack remain incarcerated and will continue to be for multiple life terms. What was the result of that “humane and dignified” counterterrorism legal approach? It encouraged al Qaeda and other groups to conclude that they had nothing to fear from our legal proceedings and ponderously slow law enforcement investigations. They continued planning and executing more spectacular attacks, including the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the Bombing of the USS Cole, and ultimately 9/11.

The fact that the Bush administration was, gasp, “debating the merits of torture,” demonstrates only that the administration was doing its job by exploring all options, not immediately taking any choices off of the table simply because the international community might find them distasteful. Comparatively, the civilized world would prefer that we never utilize a nuclear weapon in combat, but we won’t be beating those proverbial swords into plowshares anytime soon. There are no Geneva Convention rules that apply to international terrorists like al Qaeda that recruit and operate in a multitude of nations, wearing no uniform and fighting under no recognized governmental flag. Prisoner of war status, let alone full American legal rights, should not be afforded these opportunistic killers. They are fighting for an extremist religious creed, not a nation.

A credible commander in chief never rejects outright any options available to him or her in the defense of the nation, and it is liberal peacenik utopianism to declare, as Applebaum did, that torture:

. . . is not merely immoral. . . it is also ineffective and in fact profoundly counterproductive: There is no proof that it produces better information but plenty of evidence that it has discredited the United States.

Applebaum is not privy to the classified interrogation reports generated during terrorist detainee interviews, and thus has no real knowledge of whether interrogation or “torture” tactics are implemented. Likewise, she is in no position to judge whether the information thus gleaned is better than intelligence obtained through criminal prosecutions or Geneva Convention compliant prisoner of war “interviews”. Since the intelligence gathered from Mohammed and other detainees, regardless of the methods used to obtain it, will remain classified for two more decades, it is reckless to make absolutist blanket statements now about the efficacy of intense interrogation or even actual torture in the War on Terror.

The frequent and injudicious use of torture is distasteful to everyone, including those who may be asked to perform it. However, if liberals continue to insist that torture is always wrong and should never be utilized, they may eventually come to rue the day they had an opportunity to discover and prevent a catastrophic attack but could not stomach the method that would have exposed the plot.

It is quite a simple exercise to think up a scenario in which the resolute morality of the anti-torture absolutists would face its ultimate challenge. Imagine that U.S. President Anne Applebaum, who was elected on a platform promising an end to the Iraq War and condemnation of torture as immoral and ineffective, is reading to children at an elementary school in Washington, DC one late summer morning. As she reads, her Chief of Staff whispers in her ear that the FBI, following a tip from a concerned Muslim-American, has captured a known terrorist who appears to be suffering from severe radiation poisoning in his apartment in Alexandria, VA.

The Chief of Staff further whispers that the terrorist has admitted to planting an armed, timed-detonation nuclear device inside the District of Columbia, but refuses to reveal where the device has been placed. The Chief of Staff concludes with the words, “He told the FBI the device would detonate in 2 hours. We cannot evacuate the city in that time, Madame President.” President Applebaum politely excuses herself without alarming the children, and moves to a holding room where she can confer with her advisers.

The CIA director advises President Applebaum that the terrorist in custody was previously imprisoned by the Russians during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA Director further advises that Russian intelligence received much useful information on Mujahideen movements from this terrorist because he displayed only moderate resistance to torture. Russian intelligence operatives had found “waterboarding” to be the single most effective method for extracting information from this individual now in FBI custody, usually requiring no more than 1 hour of the procedure before he broke.

The FBI Director reminds President Applebaum that the terrorist knows where the device is and how to disarm it, but laughs and shouts “Death to the Great Satan” when asked to reveal where the bomb is located. No one in the room wishes to be responsible for recommending it, but the question hanging in the air, to be answered only by President Applebaum, is, “Should we ‘waterboard’ this terrorist, find the bomb, and save Washington, or would that be immoral, further discrediting the United States in the eyes of the world?”

The Washington Post editorial and Applebaum’s column would indicate that the writers have not given sufficient consideration to the ramifications of declaring torture as an intelligence tool to be immoral and universally insisting that it should never be used. Sound advice in time of war would be to keep all available arrows in the quiver, no matter ho unattractive, sharp and prepared for flight. Moral absolutism as it applies to torture is convenient and noble in peacetime, but when potential death for millions hangs in the balance, as in the above hypothetical scenario, international opinion should not dictate what tools a U.S. president should utilize to “provide for the common defense” of the nation.