Perhaps lost amid the furor over U.S. Attorney General EricHolder’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigatepossible abuses by CIA interrogators while questioning terrorsuspects is the reason the interrogations were needed in the firstplace.

It must never be forgotten that thousands of lives were lost inthe unprovoked terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.,on Sept. 11, 2001. Preventing future tragedies was the motivationfor harsh questioning of terrorist suspects captured in the wake ofthe unparalleled event.

Now, almost eight years after 9/11, Holder wants to go back andlook at the hows, whys, and wherefores of the techniques used. Ithas proven to be an unpopular decision as conservatives contend theinquiry is unnecessary and puts the nation at risk while liberalssay the probe doesn’t go far enough in determining Bushadministration leaders’ roles in authorizing the tactics used.

The fact of the matter is that interrogators were given a job todo, all under the assumption they were within their legal authorityto do. Perhaps some were overzealous, but prior federalinvestigators passed on prosecuting alleged abuses.

Many citizens don’t want or care to know how information isgleaned from terror suspects. They just want to feel safe andsecure.

Moral-minded individuals rightly should be concerned about ourtechniques not sinking to the levels of our enemies. But extremismover that concern could have a chilling effect on ourinterrogators’ ability to get useful information from terrorsuspects.

New rules have been put in place to govern interrogationtechniques. Regardless of who likes them or not, it’s time tofollow them and move on.

Looking at alleged indiscretions of the past in hopes of scoringpolitical points serves no purpose in our ability to wage the waron terror.