Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?

Posted by Bobby Eberle
April 22, 2009 at 8:00 am

In case you hadn't heard, America is no longer fighting a "war on terror." That's right... Obama and company have decided to drop the phrase along with the term "terrorist." Apparently, it's fine to use the word "pirate," but we can no longer send the "wrong" message by referring to terrorists as "terrorists."

Do Obama and his left-wing cohorts remember what happened on September 11, 2001? I certainly do. Given the fact that Obama felt it necessary to release previously classified memos regarding American interrogation techniques, it seems to me that he is more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the lives of the American people. Yes, that sounds like a harsh statement, but read on, and let's put the facts together. It all comes down to this fundamental question that any American could ponder, "How far would you go to save an American life?"


First a bit of a timeline to bring everyone up to speed. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the CIA and Bush administration performed a review of interrogation techniques: what was allowed, what was not allowed, etc. Over the course of this review it was determined that additional "enhanced interrogation techniques" could be used on terror suspects under very specific conditions. These enhanced techniques included the use of water boarding (simulated drowning).

CNSNews.com has provided a concise review of one of the interrogation memos dated May 30, 2005. The full memo is available at GOPUSA.

Following the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the CIA was following leads regarding another proposed terror attack on the West coast of the United States. This attack, known as the "Second Wave," planned to "use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles." KSM and two other top al Qaeda leaders were questioned regarding the Second Wave. KSM's response was, "Soon, you will know."

Here comes the big question... What would you do now? There is intelligence that a terror attack is being planned for Los Angeles. How many hundreds or thousands of Americans could die in this attack? Sitting in front of you are three top-level terrorists whom you believe have vital information on the plans. Traditional interrogation techniques have not worked. What would you do?

The CIA went to the next step and waterboarded KSM and the two others. These were the only three terrorists ever subjected to waterboarding. The memo describes that waterboarding may be used under very strict limitations:

"It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has 'credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent'; 'substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack'; and '[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information [or] CIA has clear indications that other ... methods are unlikely to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.'"

The memo notes that "the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles."

There are many moral questions that arise if you really study what went on and what the results were. I remember writing a column back in 2005 about Abu Ghraib and the feedback I received. In that incident, some prisoners were paraded around and humiliated. I received a number of e-mails suggesting that as Christians, we should never resort to "torture." Does that depend on what you define as torture?

In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy.

Hudson: As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.

Hudson further explained to me that "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed."

So, did the U.S. follow "just war" thinking? Did the U.S. do what it needed to do from a moral perspective? The New York Times apparently does not think so. In a story appearing today, the NY Times describes the enhanced interrogation techniques as "brutal methods" and procedures of "gruesome origins." Barack Obama appears to side with the New York Times, as he is now leaving the door open to prosecuting some Bush administration officials for "torture" violations.

Back to the primary question to Obama and anyone who cares to ponder it. How far would you go to save an American life? Apparently, had Obama been president a few years ago, and given that the CIA had information about a proposed attack on Los Angeles, he would not have given the order to use waterboarding to get the information. Would you? Considering that the plot was thwarted, and hundreds or thousands of lives were saved, was waterboarding three terrorists worth the price? Obama says no. What do you say?