Can "torture" be avoided?

Perhaps the most difficult 'response' to articulate regarding my previous post about questioning detainees could be, how can we make sure that we are never in a position to consider unconventional interrogation techniques?

It's easy to say, "no torture". But when you frame the question against an imminent attack threatening people's lives, it becomes a bit harder to say "no". We'd be smart if we devoted our energy and attention to making sure we never find ourselves in that position.

So, how do we prevent a situation when "torture" seems to be a realistic option? Programs like the NSA surveillance program could help. Allowing us to detect and disrupt plots before the develop into a real threat.

Now, I can hear you saying already, we're giving up our libery to be safe. We shouldn't have to do that! What good is a country like that?

In this case, we'd be balancing our rights with the rights of others. Our right to a private phone call with a suspected terrorist overseas, balanced with our neighbors right to life, balanced with an Al-Qaeda fighters right not to be interrogated harshly.

Or, we can refrain from harsh interrogation. Refuse to monitor communication of those who would attack us. Thereby refusing to protect ourselves and our neighbors.

What good is our country then?

I say, let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Monitor the communications of suspected terrorists regardless of the geographic location of the participants. Sure, get some legal oversight but, don't let it slow things down to a point where the program is ineffective.

Make provisions for dealing with the Hollywood scenario. An imminent attack threatening lives, and a knowledgable detainee who's unwilling to share information. Demand full accountability afterwards to prevent abuse of the provision.