Soccer Dad

Heroes? Yes.

According to Michael Goldfarb, that's what we ought to call the interrogators who got timely information that saved lives. (via memeorandum)

That's what we ought to call the men and women who interrogated the worst of the worst. For those most committed to the ridiculous crusade for terrorist rights, "enhanced interrogation" is not only immoral and illegal, it's ineffective. That argument, like Khalid Sheik Mohamed, doesn't hold water. Obviously it works sometimes, and there are plenty of senior officials, including both the current and former DNI, who have said as much. More responsible critics are satisfied to argue that the technique is illegal. Maybe they're right, but there are plenty of lawyers, and at least one Supreme Court Justice, who will argue the other side of that. It's not clear the United States government can prosecute a lawyer for holding a minority view, let alone convict an American hero for dunking a terrorist responsible for the murder of thousands. If they want any chance at getting twelve guilty votes, they'll have to hold the trial in Berkeley, which will at least make things easier on Professor Yoo.

Actually Goldfarb calls them "American Heroes." I don't disagree.

But it isn't only Americans who have to resort to such methods. The matter has come up in Israel too. Here's Stephen Flatow:

I followed the story of the bombing on Bus 26 quite closely; my 20-year-old daughter, Alisa, had been killed by an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber on a bus in Israel four months earlier. A few days after the Aug. 21 attack, Israeli and American newspapers reported that the man who masterminded it, Abdel Nasser Issa, had been in Israeli custody two days before the bombing.

Israeli authorities had arrested Mr. Issa on suspicion of terrorist activity and questioned him the same way they would question anyone else: posing questions and waiting for answers. Mr. Issa revealed nothing unusual to his interviewers. It was only after the bus bombing that Karmi Gilon, then chief of Israel's secret service, the Shin Bet, authorized the use of ''moderate physical force.''

The next morning, Mr. Issa, who had not been told of the bombing of Bus 26 the day before, told the Israelis about his plan for that attack. He also provided information that led to the arrests of 37 Hamas militants who had been planning additional bombings.

Mr. Gilon told reporters that the blood of the next victims of terrorism would have been on his hands if physical pressure had not been used in the interrogation of Mr. Issa. And Yitzhak Rabin, then Prime Minister of Israel, said that had the Shin Bet applied such pressure earlier, the attack on Bus 26 might have been prevented.

Here the question isn't hypothetical. The Israelis had a suspect whose importance they didn't realize until it was too late. Had they known Issa's importance they would have applied the "moderate physical pressure" as soon as they had apprehended them. Four innocent lives would have been saved. Is there anyone who would say that Israeli authorities were wrong?

If I remember correctly the pressure Israel applied in cases of "ticking time bombs" was violent shaking and sleep deprivation. But to Israel's critics, it was still too much.

Legal Insurrection boils the argument down to this:

And if a President of the United States had information, from the best sources available, that a nuclear weapon, or nuclear materials which could be used in a "dirty bomb," had been or were about to be smuggled into the United States, is there anything that President should not do? If a leader of al-Qaeda -- or a member of the Pakistani military -- believed to know the location of the nuclear weapons and the plans of attack were captured by the CIA in Pakistan, would waterboarding be off limits?

If your response is that there was no evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew of a nuclear attack, then you are heading down a slippery slope. If there is any situation, such as an imminent nuclear attack, in which waterboarding could be used, then you are arguing over details and degree, not a moral absolute.

And if you are morally absolute as to waterboarding, then please tell us, which American city you would sacrifice? This is the honest debate which needs to be had, once again.

The morality of coercive techniques is easy if they are ineffective or, as some allege, counterproductive. ("The suspect will be so eager to stop the torture he'll say anything.") But experience suggests that the question isn't so simple. Coercive techniques may indeed be effective and it is up to those who condemn them to explain why innocents must pay the price for their morality.

Crossposted on Yourish.