We have talked a lot about torture here and it seems we are all of the same mind that anything involving physical pain is unacceptable due to immorality in all cases, and unreliability in most cases. After that we all have our own thresholds.

For me, I don't agree with the techniques that were apparently used in Iraq. Namely using animals to frighten, and humiliation techniques.

I have been watching some old episodes of Law & Order - Criminal Intent recently because I like V. Denofrio's detective character. Not for being realistic but for his Sherlock Holmes type portrayal.

If you have ever watched the show you know that much of the plot is about interrogation. They are careful to a fault to avoid any of the implied threats of physical violence that some cop shows use, but they often use psychological trickery and outright lying to get the information they want out of suspects.

I think most of us would approve of their methods but then we have other things like sleep deprivation, noise, isolation, long term psychological pressure, etc. that we hear about in the real world.

To me it all comes down to what we need to know, why we need to know it, and how reliable are the techniques used. There are lines we should never cross but in the end those we trust with these matters will make the decisions, and they must be willing to accept judgement for what they do case by case.

I think it may have been McCain that said he would never agree to statutory approval of torture but he might reserve the right to pardon under certain circumstances.

And, of course we should strive to put the very best people in the positions of trust.