Ramesh is right — I do not disagree with anything he writes in his post. I dedicate an entire chapter in Courting Disaster to the moral questions surrounding enhanced interrogation. The fact that some coercive interrogations are permitted does not mean anything goes. But waterboarding (as practiced by the CIA) falls far short of any reasonable definition of torture, and is clearly not an absolute or intrinsic evil, as defined by the Church (we have waterboarded tens of thousands of U.S. service members — do we torture our own troops?).

If that is the case, then it is a prudential judgment for our elected officials to determine when, under what circumstances, and under what safeguards and constraints, waterboarding should be applied.

The Bush administration set a very high bar — of the roughly 100,000 people detained in the course of the war on terror, only 30 individuals had any enhanced techniques applied, and just three were waterboarded. And as I point out in Courting Disaster, the evidence is overwhelming that those waterboarding sessions helped stop terrorist attacks and there was no other way to get the information needed to protect the country.

It is also worth noting that a terrorist like KSM — who has killed thousands and has set in motion plans to kill thousands more — remains an unjust aggressor even while in custody. By withholding information about imminent attacks, he holds the power to kill. According to the Catholic Catechism, those in power have a moral obligation to render an unjust aggressor unable to cause harm.

Like the decision to go to war, the decision to use enhanced interrogation should be used sparingly, under strict controls, and only when they are absolutely necessary to defend society. Just as America always goes to war reluctantly, recognizing that war is a tragedy, even when it is necessary and just, so too do we use these techniques reluctantly — even though we know they are necessary and just.