This "complicated question" reminds me of my favorite quote from the 1992 movie Scent of a Woman. It is Lt. Col. Frank Slade (Al Pacino), defending Charlie Simms for making the moral choice not to become an informant:

Now I have come to the cross-roads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew, but I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard. Now here's Charlie. He's come to the cross-roads. He has chosen a path. It's the right path. It's a path made of principle that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey.

Like Col. Slade, those who claim "it's not cut and dried" came to that cross-road. The choice was clear, but they did not have the moral courage to make it. It felt so much better to "kick their ass"; to bomb them back to the Stone Age; to make them Suck. On. This.; to avenge 9/11; to act, and not think. "9/11 changed everything", they said. It was time to take of the gloves, they said. It was the popular choice. It would have taken a great deal of courage to say "No. This is wrong."

Now they are trying to cover up their moral cowardice. Instead of contrition, we get this wishy washy stuff passing as intellectual sophistication. But they were wrong, and they remain wrong. Our failure to hold our own leaders to our own standards will forever stain the honor of this nation. It really is that simple.

Interesting observation.

Isn't it telling that the military types, particularly the military lawyers, were opposed to this torture policy, while it was the Chickenhawks who were going all Macho Man on us? Think of the prime players: Addington, Cheney, Yoo, Bush, Rumsfeld. None served. The JAG guys opposed this policy because they felt (quite rightly) that it would stain the honor of the military services, and that it would place our own troops in jeopardy, should they be captured. But from the safety of their offices in Washington the chickenhawks were all eager to act tough. I don't believe that lack of military service should be a bar to service in government. But there was no military perspective in that bunch, and they did their best to exclude it.

I think in an important sense you're bypassing the most important aspect of the discussion. It is true that, to claim that American leaders can torture because 'their hearts are in the right place' while foreign leaders are evil if they do the same is another sad example of 'American exceptionalism'. But there is another solution to this dilemma: it would suffice for the philosopher who is worried of terrorist attacks to eliminate the exceptionalism part and declare that torture is OK, no matter who does it, if it can be demonstrated that it saves lives.

The answer to this is that this question has been asked, and has been answered. You are hand-wringing over something that has been decided long ago by our people.

In a democracy, laws are the expression of the will of the people, as Glenn and other have pointed out. Moreover in a democracy by definition leaders do not have the option to pick and choose which laws they wish to follow and which they wish to ignore. Doing so is profoundly anti-democratic.

One of our laws is the Convention Against Torture, an treaty that the US spearheaded, signed and ratified. Here is what Jane Mayer says about it in The Dark Side:

"The CAT" is about as categorical a piece of legislation as is possible to write. It bans torture absolutely. It stresses that there are "no circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or other public emergency," that could be "invoked as justification for torture" or "other acts of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" used to get prisoners to divulge information. The language in the Convention Against Torture is plain and clear. It defines torture as "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental."

That's pretty clear, is it not?

Glenn asks:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?

Unfortunately this is not the exception. Whenever the views of the American public clash with those of the elites in this country, We The People lose out. Health care is a perfect example. A majority of Americans support a single-payer universal health care system (see link at sig). But, predictably, our politicians will not embrace this view since it would be detrimental to the powerful health insurance industry, which lavishes them with money and favors. Other examples exist as well. Most Americans opposed the Wall-Street bailout, for example.

The lying liars have a point. Minnesota actually counted the votes. That's cheating!

The problem with centrism is that it's like a hammer: Every problem starts looking like a nail. Adherents look at an issue and immediately look for middle ground: "The Right says this, the Left says that, it must be something in between."

But while it's true that some issues are nails, many aren't. Some disputes have no middle ground. Whether we ought to adherence to moral, ethical and legal principles is one of those. We have to decide whether we are a Nation of Laws or not. It's that simple. If Obama tries to find middle ground where there is none he will have committed us to the wrong path as surely as if he had explicitly sided with the torturers.

And really, despite all the hand-wringing, this is not a tough choice. So we may have to release someone like Qahtani. So what? I'm a lot less fearful of that dim-witted incompetent than I am of a government that recognizes no moral, ethical and legal restraints to it's immense power.