Like many Americans, I abhor the notion of the United States' using torture to extract information. But unlike many Americans, I lack the deep moral certitude to believe that my position is logically or morally unassailable.

The question of torture is as unpleasant as it is complicated. It deserves far deeper meditation and far fewer absolutes.

What if the torture of a terrorist saved American lives, for instance? It's certainly a reasonable question -- even if it doesn't alter your position on the issue.

Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama's director of national intelligence, wrote in a memo to his staff this week, "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

If your contention is that the outcome of torture is immaterial -- whether it's one life saved or a thousand lives -- you've taken a principled stand. I've yet to hear a policymaker who opposes "torture" be honest and take accountability for the potential consequences of abandoning harsh interrogation techniques.

I put the word "torture" in quotation marks only to acknowledge that I -- and many of you, I'm sure -- do not know exactly how to define it. Most laws offer thoroughly ambiguous definitions that can cover nearly any unpleasant interrogation.

As any parent can tell you, sleep deprivation is mentally torturous. Does it rise to the level of a crime? Waterboarding? OK, how about pushing someone against a wall? Scaring a grizzled terrorist with a caterpillar? Such techniques inflict "stress and duress," for sure, but do they "shock the conscience" (one definition offered for torture)? Continued...