Why should we put any more credence in the memos Cheney refers to than we would in the repeated representations by Cheney and others that enhanced interrogation was critical? We know that there are individuals in government who have a strong interest in making this case, so I don't doubt that such memos exist.

Why stop at these memos, though? I'll see you and raise you. Let's have a comprehensive investigation of the value of that program, and the costs. I believe such an investigation will show that the Bush administration's decision to adopt these practices was counterproductive.

Even if some information of value did emerge from enhanced interrogations, this must be weighed against:
the possibility that this information could have been elicited through other means;
the likelihood (which many veteran interrogators say is quite strong) that better information overall could have been elicited by other means;
the wasted effort in following up on false leads, which were numerous by many accounts;
the slippery slope by which brutality became standard operating procedure for non-high-value detainees, and eventually completely innocent individuals;
the near certainty that reports of the US program would inflame the muslim world, bolstering insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, fanning hatred of the US and thus leading to an enhanced future terrorism threat and diminished cooperation;
the grave damage to the US reputation, which will take years to heal.

The political-debate shift you foresee presumes a very different outcome of such an investigation, or no investigation whatsoever.

To my mind among the greatest sins of the Bush administration was that they didn't adopt a smart response to 9/11, but rather responded rashly and without thinking things through, squandering a lot of opportunities.

The declassifications were in response to specific ACLU Freedom of Information Act requests. Other documents were not requested; if Cheney and co. want to request release of particular documents (leaving aside that they had the power to do so not three months ago), so be it. But you exhibit typical right-wing chutzpah when you suggest that it was Obama's duty to declassify more documents than were requested after arguing that he should have declassified none, purely out of an altruistic concern for the PR needs of the administration that the documents relate to. If Dick Cheney has in fact requested release of the documents to which you refer (it has been unclear if he has), that is well and good; the administration will assess whether such declassifications are possible. But the notion that the administration had some obligation to over-declassify purely out of concern for the last administration's case for the efficacy of torture is, well, remarkable for its self-indulgence. Bravo.

Now that some of them were released, shouldn't all of them be released?

And if Obama is set on going after the lawyers, shouldn't he also go after the members of Congress who supported the lawyers?

And if we're going to debate the Bush torture policy, shouldn't we also debate the Clinton/Obama torture policy of rendition? Or, is torture OK if we outsource it?

And if torture is OK if Obama outsources it, why not find a middle ground, and outsource our torture to private companies like Blackwater, and insist they do not engage in the level of brutality associated with the rendition program (i.e. cattle prods to genitals and the like)?

First and foremost, I do not want or like etc torture. I'm not one of those millions of Americans who wanted Osama Bin Laden's skin peeled on pay per view.

However, the myth that a ticking bomb scenario doesn't exist is a lie. It DID exist, and it does exist today. Before 911, the US new for months that a big attack was coming. George Tenet told the Joint House/Senate inquiry (as also reported in the 911 Commission and Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies) that he was running around DC like he was on fire. Then, the FBI grabbed Zacarias Moussaoui, and his laptop computer. The investigative process blocked American investigators from looking at the laptop which would have revealed the 911 plot and likely prevented it. Equally, he was not allowed to be tortured. America could have prevented 911 if the investigative process wasn't hindered, OR if he was tortured.

Months later, Zubaydah and KSM are captured. Intel agencies know another 911 attack is coming, but the process can't figure it out (again). This time, harsh interrogations were used, and then torture (not all harsh interrogation is torture and vice versa), and a 911 attack was prevented (according to multiple CIA directors, the Vice President, the President, and the new Director of National Intelligence.

Sick and sad as it is to say, torture worked. It was a last resort, and it worked.

SO, we can look at it simply. When intel says there's an attack coming, and the investigative process is stumped, America can either:
A) stoop to torture and hope that it reveals the attack like it would have with Moussoui, and did with KSM
or
B) refuse to stoop so low, and know that lives could have been saved.

I say the lesson here is do like the Navy does in a sinking ship. When you're told to close the hatch and let people die so that the ship may survive, close the hatch. Let the people in NYC, DC, Los Angeles, San Fran, etc., let them get attacked & then tell their families that we had people in custody who knew of the attack, but we didn't want to torture em. We CHOSE to let the people die. That's the decision.

Do like they do in the military and cut your losses. Close the hatch. Let the attack happen (still understanding that the investigative process is blocked like before and after 911).

The families won't understand, and politically it's equally suicidal, but the honor of the flag is protected. Besides, maybe then Richard Clarke's testimony to the 911 Commission will be remembered, 'America needs more body bags before people will get it.'

"I am not a lawyer, not even a bad lawyer, so I am not competent to judge one way or the other on the legal reasoning in Philip Zelikow's post. And, since, unlike Philip, I did not work on the issue inside, I am not privy to all that he knows about the matter. His legal reasoning strikes me as plausible, and I certainly agree with him that the legal issue is just one aspect of the matter. Philip usefully embeds the legal framework within a larger ethical framework. We also need to recognize that the ethical framework is part of a political framework."

I am so sick of this sort of reasoning relative to torture inflicted by agents of the USA government, just as I am sick of Cheney's argument as to torture's effectiveness.

The "ethical" and "political" "framework" are entirely irrelevant.

Torture is illegal, in accordance to both international conventions to which the USA is a signatory and USA law; and torture was inflicted by agents of the USA government.

Thus the only relevant question in this matter "is which Cheney administration officials, members of Congress, and government employees and/or contractors should be held to account.