On balancing the pros and cons I've looked into in detail over the past week, I now believe it was a mistake to use specific interrogation methods like waterboarding, or other techniques designed to cause intense physical discomfort, even if no permanent damage is done.

However, given the circumstances at the time, it's easy to understand why the mistake was made.

I still oppose qualifying every form of interrogation or discipline, including many common in civilian prisons (solitary confinement, restriction of privileges, leaving lights on all the time) as "torture." To spread the definition of the term as far as it has been neutralizes it as a meaningful word. Those following the other threads might have noticed that in a paper used as an anti-torture reference, the author himself is quite distinct about what methods constituted physical torture and what didn't. For example, would "forced writing" come under that category nowadays?

Also, a little humility on some people's part here might be appropriate, particularly in relation to the purely partisan sniping on this issue. Much of the opposition I faced (with some notable exceptions) had less to do with the issue than it did with Bush Derangement. Maybe being on the other side of an issue from Bush is enough for some people to decide important things. It shouldn't be.

There is no real evidence that the CIA under a Democratic administration would not have made similar decisions, and it should be remembered that these methods were presented in detail to Congress members in 2002, including major Democratic leaders, and approved.

And given the actions of other admired administrations under perceived national emergencies, the smugness and moral righteousness that has characterized a lot of the argument could seriously be toned down a bit.

I'm open for questions.