The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
Cheney for President
As the Obama administration moves toward prosecuting intelligence agents for allegedly overzealous questioning of terrorists in the months following the 9/11 attacks, the Washington Post delivers a timely reminder of why those methods were thought necessary.
The Post recounts “terrorist tutorials” delivered by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, “the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks” and who has been in U.S. custody since March 2003. KSM, according to an anonymous source, “seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group’s plans, ideology and operatives.” But he was not so loquacious at the start:
This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.
“KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete,” according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA’s then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.
The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general’s report and other documents released this week indicate.
The Post is right to say the debate is “irresolvable.” History does not allow for controlled experiments, so there is no way of knowing if innocent Americans would in fact have been killed in terrorist attacks had the CIA treated KSM with TLC, as now seems to be U.S. policy under the Obama administration.
Indeed, a paradox of antiterror efforts is that their success tends to undermine them. As there has not been a major attack in the U.S. in almost eight years, it seems at least plausible to claim that 9/11 was a one-off and that the “war on terror” that followed was an overreaction.
It’s also not surprising that members of the previous administration, most notably former vice president Dick Cheney, reject that argument, as the Post reported Friday:
“President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security,” Cheney said.
Our guess, however, is that Cheney overstates when he says “so many Americans have doubts.” We’d venture that for most people the Obama administration’s see-no-evil approach is comforting. After years of fear and vigilance, it’s nice to be able to relax and not worry so much about terrorism.
It’s nice–but potentially dangerous. If the Bush administration’s policies really did keep us safe for 7½ years, then it stands to reason that the Obama administrations’ policies may be endangering us now. Certainly that is how the public would see it in the event of another terrorist attack.
If that happens, heaven forbid, Obama will be seen to have failed in the most basic presidential duty, and the Bush administration will be vindicated. As inconceivable as it may seem today, the 2012 election may end up turning on national security. Republicans would be wise to nominate someone with both toughness and experience. Under such circumstances, it’s hard to think of a better candidate–assuming, of course, that he could be persuaded to run–than Richard B. Cheney.
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.
