Al-Qaeda has also begun preying on children. On the heels of the pet market atrocities, Al-Qaeda in Iraq training videos surfaced, showing the group actively recruiting and training children, many of whom appear to be around the age of 10. The videos show some of the youngsters donning mock suicide vests, while others are performing mock executions. Intelligence reports going back years indicate that Al-Qaeda has been interested in equipping children to carry out suicide attacks. Don’t be surprised if the next market is blown up by a 10-year-old, whether he realizes the purpose of his mission or not.

          Amazingly, even after the beheadings, mass bombings, and burning alive of men, women, and children, Al-Qaeda in Iraq has once again managed to shock our consciences. Just when we think their actions can be no more disturbing, we read about these deplorable new tactics.

          Meanwhile, in Washington, CIA director Michael Hayden and Attorney General Michael Mukasey were testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the techniques being used to fight terrorists who perpetrate these types of heinous acts. There was a great deal of outrage on the part of many Democrats on the committee, but it wasn’t directed at the abhorrent acts of our enemies — but instead at those who are trying to stop them.

          Gen. Hayden testified for the first time that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning, has been used on three high-level detainees. Among those waterboarded was the self-described mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and two other high-ranking Al-Qaeda officials.

          This testimony was particularly disturbing to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), who immediately called for a criminal investigation into whether the interrogators committed illegal acts by using this technique. This further solidifies Durbin’s reputation of being more concerned about prosecuting those who are trying to protect us rather than trying to catch those who want to destroy us. It should also serve as a reminder to all voters who are concerned about the priorities of their elected officials. Do you want leaders who are aggressively pursuing terrorists or those who are preoccupied with making sure those terrorists are being treated fairly? That’s not to say that the two concerns are mutually exclusive, but that is to say one must decide which takes precedence when the interests compete. Clearly Senators such as Durbin have made their choice and put the safety and treatment of the terrorists paramount.

          Durbin and his ilk might want to redirect some of their indignation away from the CIA director and toward their fellow congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). Both were advised by the Bush administration back in 2002 on the technique of waterboarding and its possible use to garner information from hardened terrorists if reasonably necessary to prevent another attack. At that time, neither Pelosi nor Rockefeller objected to its use. Of course, that was before the nonsensical "anti-antiterror" crowd had garnered sway within the Democratic Party.

          Other Senators on the committee, including Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also continued their obsession and supposed outrage regarding the use of waterboarding. Schumer once again sought to back Attorney General Mukasey into a corner by asking him whether he considered waterboarding illegal. Wisely, Mukasey, while acknowledging that he personally found the technique “repugnant,” refused to rule it out completely. That is, he wouldn’t go so far as to say it could never be used under any circumstances. Democrats on the committee, one by one, continued this line of questioning with Mukasey to no avail. If only they were this persistent about catching the real bad guys.

          Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” similarly tried to back Barack Obama into a corner by posing to him the now famous “ticking bomb” scenario: A suspect is in custody who authorities reasonably believe knows the location of a bomb set to go off on American soil at any moment. Despite repeated attempts with conventional interrogation techniques, the suspect won’t divulge the whereabouts of the bomb. How do you proceed?

          Obama’s response? “I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations, and I will make that judgment at that time.” Imagine that. The presidential hopeful wants the flexibility to order harsh interrogation techniques if reasonably necessary to uphold his oath to protect the American people. (But don’t give Obama too much credit; his Senate voting record on terror-related legislation, like many of his fellow Senate Democrats’, is abysmal. Just last week, he voted against giving telecommunications companies who aided our government in the wake of 9/11 immunity from tort liability. Luckily, 69 other senators saw to it that such immunity would be granted by voting “yea")

          Applying current rhetoric from many prominent Democrats to Obama’s ticking-time-bomb answer, the junior senator from Illinois “advocates torture!” But it’s a safe bet that neither Schumer nor Durbin will be making that claim against their front-runner anytime soon.

          Hillary Clinton's comments on the subject, similar to Obama’s and to those made by her husband, were that using harsh interrogation techniques, while unfortunate, may be necessary if innocent American lives are at stake. But she backed off after the MoveOn.org crowd bullied her away from this sensible position. As it is with the war in Iraq, Clinton’s position on fighting terrorism has proved malleable, and it continues to plague her credibility.

          Try as it might, the Left has not been able to counter the rational decision by the Bush administration to leave open the possibility, however rare, that harsh interrogation techniques may be necessary in the future under such ticking bomb scenarios. To be sure, the Democratic establishment and their “netroot” counterparts are hard at work formulating a response that supports the myopic position that harsh interrogation techniques must be outlawed under all circumstances. To date, they have only attacked the hypothetical itself by calling it unrealistic and simplistic. 

          Not only is it realistic, variations of the ticking time bomb scenario have already happened as outlined below. It’s simply ignorant to assume it won’t happen again. We are fighting a war on international terrorism across the globe. We are also actively engaged in subduing two insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan; the mainstays of both are terrorist activities such as car bombings and kidnappings.  In this effort we have captured hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorists. Is it unrealistic to assume that some of them will have information on pending attacks and will be extremely reluctant to provide the details? Of course not; this scenario is probably playing out right now.  

          It is also not simplistic to use the ticking time-bomb scenario because it gives the use of waterboarding and other techniques context. For example, no one would advocate using the technique on an average Taliban foot soldier who the CIA has no reason to believe possesses vital information on the next large-scale attack in Kabul or Kandahar. Likewise, no one would advocate bringing in a high-ranking Al-Qaeda terrorist and immediately using waterboarding as a first line of interrogation. Only when the interrogators are reasonably certain the detainee has information that will save lives and all other conventional interrogation techniques have failed might it be necessary, and then only under proper supervision and oversight. It’s simplistic not to take context into account.

          The soft on terror crowd also claim that harsh interrogation techniques don’t work because they elicit false confessions or unreliable information. Tell that to Al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, who interrogators say cracked in less than a minute after being waterboarded and began giving up information on planned terrorist attacks that, according to one of his interrogators, “probably saved lives.” Or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who went from recalcitrant to effusive after less than two minutes of waterboarding. Only then did Mohammed describe how he personally decapitated journalist Daniel Pearl. One can only hope that Mohammed wasn’t too put out by his 90-second ordeal. His confessions also aided in the capture of other high-ranking terrorists who, no doubt, would have gone on to kill and maim others had they continued to elude capture. So much for waterboarding’s “ineffectiveness.”

          Others worry that we’re losing the moral high ground if we don’t emphatically state that harsh interrogation techniques are never appropriate. Nonsense. The very battle over waterboarding in Washington and beyond illustrates the starkest of contrasts between us and them. While we seek only to reserve a technique (one that at no time puts the captive in any real physical danger) for the most dire and desperate of circumstances, they continue to astonish the world with their ever more heinous and brutal tactics. While we continue to take every precaution to protect the innocent, they purposefully target them with screw- and nail-laden bombs. While we place our own men and women in uniform in harm’s way to protect civilian populations, they direct their most egregious acts of war against those same civilians. While we build roads, schools, and hospitals, they blow up markets, cafes, and pipelines. Can there be any real discussion on who’s taken the low road?

          While we should never stoop to the level of our morally challenged enemy, we must also not handcuff our own operatives in the field fighting every day to win this war. Allowing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques under very limited, rare, and regulated circumstances doesn’t compromise our moral high ground, but it will save more lives and help us defeat this enemy. When that day comes, waterboarding will no longer serve a purpose. But until that day, we must vigorously defend ourselves against the tight lipped mass murderers in our custody by leaving harsh interrogation techniques as an option of last resort.

# # #