But the context and details of the story are only marginally relevant. Debating what would have happened if she had refused to provide the information only obfuscates the point. If she had not provided the information, then the plane's engines would have been shut down, she would have known that we were bluffing, and then she would have told all ten people who would listen to her that we bluff. So what?

Other details are also only marginally relevant in my opinion. The main thrust is whether such a practice is moral and legal. I won't comment on legal except that if it is legal in policing work in the U.S. (which it is), I cannot possibly see how it could be illegal in warfare, conventional, counterinsurgency or counterterrorism.

As for the morality of the practice, I cannot see how it could be immoral. In the story we lied to the woman. So what? I can make a Biblical and moral case for lying and deception under many different circumstances, not the least of which is warfare. The enemy is not entitled to the truth. While I don't believe in situational ethics, it's also important to realize that morality is not exlusively deontological (long story, I'll be happey to elaborate in an e-mail to any interested party).

Finally, as for duress, I have no problems with causing distress to the enemy. In your story the woman may not be the enemy, but it simply must be understood by our morally preening society that warfare involves corporate accountability, and that the conduct of war unavoidably and necessarily involves harm to the land, infrastructure, and even though we try to avoid it, noncombatants. In this particular story we have not harmed the woman, only caused her emotional distress. So much the better, because if we get the information we want, we may be able to save lives of our own servicemen. To me, this story presents the clearest picture of a win-win situation. She is unharmed, and we save lives.

As for unavoidable collateral damage and harm to noncombatantct, it is a function of the nature of armed conflict. If the nation doesn't like it, they should consider this fact prior to launching a campaign rather than attempt to change the nature of the thing that they have started.

As one final thought, harm to noncombatants (while this is a little far afield from the subject of the post) does do harm to the overall campaign and of course should be avoided to the extent possible, while also not restricting the right of self defense. But I agree with Ken (I believe it was he who made the point) that I don't believe that anyone is this important. In general, I am no fan of the HVT campaign because I think it is largely ineffective (here I am not referring to the drone campaign in Pakistan, but the SOF raids in the middle of the night to capture mid-level Taliban commanders who will be released later anyway).

Now that I have taken the discussion too far afield, I'll sign off.