Remember Danny Pearl's murder

Mark Goldblatt:

IN case you haven't seen the 2002 video of the execution Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Muslim terrorists, here's a synopsis: It opens with Pearl, unshaven and haggard, identifying himself as an American Jew. He talks about his Jewish heritage and segues into obviously coerced denunciations of American foreign policy.

Interspersed throughout Pearl's monologue are fleeting images of dead and wounded Muslims. The video then jump-cuts, for several seconds, to a hooded figure slashing Pearl's throat and decapitating his corpse. Pearl is clean-shaven at the end; he's been meticulously prepared for slaughter. This is followed by a lingering shot of Pearl's head held aloft, a warning to the rest of us of what happens to infidels, but also a prize - the spoils of jihad.

You should keep in mind the Pearl video during the current controversy over waterboarding since we now know that the hooded figure hacking through Pearl's neck and hoisting up his severed head was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - one of three "victims" of waterboarding by American interrogators.

KSM's other claim to fame? He masterminded the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

The debate over waterboarding has been framed as a question of whether America will live up to its highest ideals: Will we stoop to the level of our enemies or treat captured enemy combatants humanely? But this is a false choice.

In the first place, waterboarding KSM to obtain actionable intelligence isn't stooping to his level. Drawing and quartering him as a warning to his fellow jihadis would be stooping to his level. In the second place, treating a terrorist humanely doesn't mean treating him with kid gloves. "Humane treatment" is a relative standard. Waterboarding mimics the sensation of drowning; it's unpleasant, even terrifying, but does no lasting damage to the victim. The practice is less humane than, say, politely inquiring after information but much more humane than racking or crucifying.

...

every terrorist is by definition a war criminal. That is, he's not merely a warrior fighting for an evil cause. He's a warrior engaging in criminal activities on behalf of an evil cause. To treat a captured terrorist as a traditional prisoner of war is to afford him the rights of a lawful combatant, which he doesn't deserve. According to the Geneva Conventions, lawful combatants must meet four criteria: 1) They must operate within a fixed chain of command; 2) They must fight wearing recognizable uniforms; 3) They must carry their weapons openly; 4) they must act in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Terrorists meet none of these criteria. They are, to be blunt, the lowest of the lows. Every time we fail to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants, every time we insist that the two groups have identical rights, we encourage lawful combatants to become unlawful combatants. We say, in effect, "We're going to treat cheaters and non-cheaters the same." Such a position is unfair to the non-cheaters.

...

The significance difference between the conduct of KSM and the people who made him uncomfortable with waterboarding is that one imposes terror to frighten the world into submission, and the other does it to save the innocent from those who would murder all who do not agree with their weird religious ideas. The failure to comprehend that distinction gives an advantage to the wicked that is far greater than the PR hit we take with weak kneed liberals around the world.