The Occasional Observer

Waterboarding has indeed saved lives, so says a former CIA agent with intimate knowledge of the Abu Zubayda interrogation.

The fact that this same agent considers it torture and is against its use is a separate issue. One can argue whether certain techniques ought or ought not be used by the US. But the admission above lays to rest oft-repeated claims that no form of torture works, so now those who would argue against its use must at least do so conceding that they will not be getting full information out of detainees.

I'd also highlight the articles here and here, that indicate that Dems and Pelosi knew about waterboarding as early as '02 via CIA briefing and were unopposed, and a recent change of heart from a Newsweek journalist after talking with experts, respectively. In particular, an excerpt from the Newsweek article:

The unfortunate truth is that it may take unsavory methods to gather intelligence. It may be true that torture doesn't work well to get at the truth (on the theory that people will lie to stop the pain). But most intelligence experts will uneasily acknowledge that aggressive interrogation measures like sleeplessness—so-called "torture lite"—can work, especially when time is of the essence. The public may have to tolerate or turn a blind eye to more of the dark side if we want more actionable intelligence. I acknowledge this with reluctance and only as a last resort.