At the same time, I wonder whether he’s the best interrogator to make the case against harsh interrogation. After all, Saddam is arguably a special case, where both time and unique psychological levers (i.e. the video, and the fact of his fall from power) were available to US agents. Might it not be different with a low level operative with knowledge of a “ticking time bomb”?

To that end, I think our opposition to torture has to be framed primary in self-referential moral terms (we are better than that, and it hurts us to sink to that level) and the negative consequences (whether or not we have a viable alternative, we can never be confident in the results of torture, and may be dangerously misled by false confessions).