Of course, Gerecht's hypothetical is as worthless as the rest of his scary hypotheticals.  If Bush had engaged in a "public discussion" on torture we would be looking at an entirely different Presidency altogether.  In reality, we have an Administration that pursued in secret and despite a lack of intelligence war in Iraq.  

If you ask the question in a certain way, won't you get different responses?  Most of the time the question is phrased will some variant of:  Is it ok to torture terrorists to get information that will prevent an imminent attack?  Knee-jerk response in the affirmative would be anticipated.

How about if the question is posed as: Is it ok to torture people that we think might be terrorists but may just be innocent bystanders?  Or, Is it ok to torture people who may be terrorists if the information that may prevent an attack or may lead us down a false road and waste valuable time?  Or, Is it ok to torture people who may be terrorists if it is violation of treaty obligations?

George W. Bush defended harsh interrogations by pointing to intelligence breakthroughs, but a surprising number of counterterrorist officials say that, apart from being wrong, torture just doesn't work. Delving into two high-profile cases, the author exposes the tactical costs of prisoner abuse.

[...]

Officials who analyzed Abu Zubaydah's interrogation reports say that the reports were afforded the highest value within the Bush administration not because of the many American lives they were going to save but because they could be cited repeatedly against those who doubted the wisdom of ousting Saddam by force.

[...]

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls "enhanced techniques"?

"I'm really reluctant to answer that," Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: "I don't believe that has been the case."

The British, during the infamous Operation Demitrius tortured or, as they put it, "interrogated in depth" any number of Irish Republicans or suspected Irish Republicans.  Some say that internment was the best recruitment tool the IRA ever had.

The fact tht Aemricans are so blind to history, not just our own, but world history, and the fact that we are so willing to compromise our principles in this volatile era is troubling.  

Oh, really?? Let me pose a scenario to you. This afternoon you drive over to your local shopping center to shop. As you get out of your car you see an elderly lady walking towards her car one row over. You can also see two young thugs semi crouched between two cars, obviously waiting to mug her. As you start to move, one of the thugs sees you and makes a threatening gesture. Do you yell at her? Run at the thugs? Honk your horn? Dial 911? Or stand frozen in place, watching them jump out, grab her purse, knock her down and dash off leaving her dazed and injured on the pavement.

If you chose to do nothing, I submit that you have just committed an immoral act. You have committed a sin of omission. We are our brother's keeper.

If you knew a prisoner had information that would save lives, would you agree that it would be okay to aid questioning him by depriving him of sleep, playing loud music, insulting his cultural mores, exposing him to temperature extremes...?

If you knew a prisoner had information that would save thousands of lives would you agree that pouring water down his nose to make him talk is okay?

The Left in particular, and some fuzzy headed Republicans are currently bent out of shape over waterboarding. I'm not.

This is purely an issue that must be decided in context. We elect people to do such things. To tell them that they can't do all they think is necessary is just dumb.

What is even dumber is the claim that if we don't take extreme measures, others won't. There is not one shred of evidence that proves that. In fact, all the available evidence shows the opposite.

What is dumber still is the claim that such information cannot not be used because the prisoner will say anything he thinks the questioner wants to hear. That is nonsense. Coerced information can, and has been, vetted for years by comparing it to information known to be true and various other techniques.

And what is torture? I do not think the above methods are torture. But even if you do, you must recognize that sometimes things must be done to save others.

As I've written before, I'm strongly opposed to rendition. Would that the Clinton and the Bush administrations--especially the Bush administration--had started a public discussion of what we do with holy warriors who live to slaughter thousands.

WTF?

Does he understand what the word "opposes" means?  No one could ever read his NYT article and get that impression.