I know I’m Monday Morning Quarterbacking but I think her last answer on whether or not waterboarding fits the definition of “torture” was a bit too legalistic and from the perspective of a bystander, I believe it would appear to be a dodge.

The better way to answer it would have been to take the same tack she took with the first questioner. Put the entire decision making process and the very nature of waterboarding into context (i.e. 9/11) and essentially leave it for everyone to reach their own conclusion by forcing them to see it through the Administration’s eyes.

Q: Is waterboarding torture?

A: No. It’s an interrogation technique that, first of all, did not violate our obligations under the Convention against Torture, and second, it was one that yielded significant valuable information and possibly saved thousands of American lives. Let us remember something here; 3000 Americans were killed by these people in one day, and we soon found out that there were second, third and perhaps even more waves of attacks planned to be carried out.
    Now the question was, how do we stop them? Where are these terrorist cells? Are they already in the United States? Who are in those cells? Where do they get their funding? When, where and how do they plan to attack? We needed this information and we needed it ASAP.
    So when we captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of these attacks, we had to find out what he knew. Now, remember that this is a very highly motivated, very determined, very intelligent individual. How do we get him to talk if he decides not to? Do we allow him to remain silent and risk American lives? Or do we find a way to make him divulge the information he knew?
    President Bush, and I agreed with him, decided that the risk was too great. American lives, lives we were responsible for, were at risk. So, the Bush Administration instructed the intelligence community to come up with interrogation techniques that would get us answers to these questions, but at the same time leave us on the same side as the law.
    Waterboarding was at the extreme end of these techniques and in the end, it was only deemed necessary for the most recalcitrant subjects … like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Three altogether. Note again that the rules were very strict as to its application and all other options had to have been exhausted. The Bush Administration also informed members of both parties on the Intelligence Committees and Congressional leadership, including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
    Now, let me note a few things about waterboarding, and why the Administration approved it as a last resort technique. One; while it certainly makes the subject very uncomfortable, it leaves no physiological or psychological damage whatsoever. There was no threat at any point to the person’s life. Two; it is something that members of our own military are currently subjected to as part of their training.
    Compare this to using electrodes or smashing a hammer on toes. That’s torture. This, especially when you know carefully it was monitored and how rarely it was employed, is not even in the same vicinity.
    So, in the end, we had to find a good balance between keeping the American people safe, which means finding ways to extract information from people who might not be willing to divulge it, and staying on the side of the law. The thing is that it’s remarkably easy in hindsight for people without the responsibility to criticize after the fact. But then we got a lot of true, verifiable, actionable information and a lot of people are living their lives today because of it. So my advice is for you to actually get informed, read up on it – a lot of facts are out there but are not making it into the media. Put aside the partisanship, the ideology. What would you do in our situation, and how would you have done it?

Anyway, that’s what I would have had her say. In an ideal world.

Either way though; bravo Ms. Rice!