Enhanced capture

The Bush administration took a lot of heat for allowing "enhanced interrogation" of captured terrorists, sometimes in prisons outside American jurisdiction. Now that those interrogations have yielded us the corpse of Osama bin Laden, the heat is being applied (though ever so gently) to the feet of the Obama administration, which wildly denies that "torture" had anything to do with it. Personally, I don't think that waterboarding is torture, as opposed to real scary stuff, but then--I've never been waterboarded! (American soldiers are sometimes subjected to it, the better to prepare them to endure scary stuff.) And now Chris Wallace of Fox News has put his finger upon the crux of the matter:

"why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits -- why is that over the line?"

Indeed. And the absurdity of the whole affair is brought out ever more starkly as the interview continued. Tom Donilon, President Obama's national security adviser, gives the sane and sensible answer, which Mr. Wallace then boots across the goal line (but don't spike that football!):

Donilon: Because, well, our judgment is that it’s not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.

Wallace: But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?

Donilon: We are at war with Osama bin Laden.

Wallace: We’re at war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that waterboarding is right and proper. John McCain says it isn't, and if anyone knows about torture, it's Mr. McCain, who was subjected to it for years on end. But if waterboarding is wrong, how come assassination is right? Does it somehow qualify as enhanced capture if done by a left-liberal administration? Blue skies! -- Dan Ford