Let's imagine you have captured an al-Qaida leader you know has information on future attacks against the United States, but all he is willing to say is "Soon, you will know." What should you do?

Amnesty International would want this man to be offered all of the amenities of a standard criminal suspect, with access to a lawyer and full rights of the accused. He is a person too, after all, and doesn't deserve to be detained without criminal charges being brought up, much less interrogated. Guantanamo Bay is an unacceptable place to hold terror suspects, they say.

Upon assuming office, President Barack Obama immediately banned the use of waterboarding, an interrogation tactic in which a victim is tied down and water is poured over the person. According to MSNBC, Obama has even considered prosecuting those who did use waterboarding on terrorists. The administration would not harshly interrogate the al-Qaida leader.

President Bush was faced with the scenario above. In May 2005, the Bush administration had captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and they knew he had useful intelligence. He was uncooperative under interrogation. You know what action Bush chose — waterboarding.

As a result, the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles still stands. A plan to hijack a plane and crash it into the tower was thwarted because of information gathered, and a 17-member terrorist cell was removed. Los Angeles could have been the new ground zero, with a scar across its face. The plans for a "second wave" attack on the U.S. were destroyed because of Bush's lack of squeamishness about waterboarding.

Thank you, President Bush, for choosing waterboarding. You saved us from another Sept. 11, from losing thousands of proud U.S. citizens. For that we owe you our gratitude.

NOT ALL AGREE ON WATERBOARDING

Many on the American and International Left oppose waterboarding. They say that it constitutes torture and isn't effective. I think we can all agree that waterboarding isn't pleasant, but it doesn't leave scars and sounds a tad nicer than what terrorists have done to captured Americans.

It might be torture.

Arguments that we're just as bad as the terrorists for doing such things as waterboarding seem to overlook the concept of terrorism. Terrorists are ideologues attacking civilian targets, and the American military targets terrorists. These are nowhere near equivalent.

The waterboarding technique is effective. The practice has already saved many lives by giving people the information they needed to act and avert disaster, in the KSM case and the other two times it was used by the CIA since Sept. 11.

It works.

When is waterboarding acceptable? When does pragmatism win out? When you're saving lives. There is a legal and moral obligation that the government protect its citizens from external threats.

Niccolò Machiavelli once said, "A soldier only has to die for his country. A prince must be willing to go to hell for it."

We don't ask our leaders to defend us in morally reprehensible fashion anymore. But if the CIA ever captures someone who has information regarding a terrorist attack planned on K-State, I want that information out of him, whatever it takes.

Oh, it feels warm and fuzzy to know that we are more civilized than barbarians of the past who would attach electrodes to people's genitals in order to get information, not unlike Iraq under Saddam. Removing the torture from the War on Terror sounds terrific.

The fact that we don't torture terrorists would be small consolation to the families of those killed in attacks that could have otherwise been averted.

Frank Male is a senior in physics and political science. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.