On the Weekly Standard’s website Stephen Hayes draws the unavoidable conclusion from the report of and a subsequent interview with CIA Inspector General John Helgerson: the enhanced interrogation techniques, including but not limited to waterboarding, worked. They produced valuable intelligence that enabled U.S. authorities to prevent future attacks. The political left is trying to argue that we can’t really know whether this is so or not—that just because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed refused to give any significant information before being subjected to EITs and then did so after being subjected to those techniques, that EITs may not have been the reason for the change in his behavior. We are being asked to believe that perhaps it was a change in his metabolism, or something, that changed his behavior. Please. Wherever else the argument goes, those who oppose the use of EITs must concede that they did in fact produce valuable intelligence which we could have obtained in no other way. Case closed.