FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Leon Panetta, head of the CIA, said earlier this week that intelligence collected from detainees who were waterboarded provided clues that helped the U.S. track down Osama bin Laden.
Waterboarding, which is the simulated drowning of prisoners to get them to spill secrets, is no longer legal, thanks to President Obama. It was one of Obama's first acts as president.
The Bush Administration before him had been harshly criticized for what some said was legalizing torture. Panetta in the past has said that enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding is torture and is morally wrong. However, he also said the debate about the use of these techniques will continue.
Some former members of the Bush Administration and a handful of other Republicans were quick to defend the practice in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Justice Department official John Yoo and Congressman Peter King from New York have all said in interviews this week that information obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques used on prisoners, like waterboarding, was key to the successful raid on Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout.
However, none of these men is really in the position to know this for sure. And there's been no official statement or any proof that any information gained from prisoners by using these interrogation techniques ultimately led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Here’s my question to you: Does getting Osama bin Laden justify the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Jamie in St. Louis:
Yes, even though I thought they were already justified. We should do whatever it takes to defeat these criminals. If we have to dunk someone's head under water a few times to keep some psychopath from killing innocent civilians then so be it.
Mark in Tucson:
Jack, is there actual proof that enhanced interrogation techniques were responsible for getting Bin laden? Who knows for sure? The answer to your question though is yes, but only in extreme and extraordinary cases or where time of the essence.
Dave in Phoenix:
On its face, it sounds like a good reason to promote torture. Let's call it torture, Jack. That's what it is. It's all good until this starts happening to our troops some day in the future, and Americans become all indignant about it.
Hardball will never be tasteful for softballers. In the murder business, no more Mr. Niceguy. The covert invasion of a sovereign nation by U.S. Navy Seals in stealth aircraft under the cloak of darkness should bug softballers more than the waterboarding of terrorist prisoners, but I'm not hearing it.
Hell, yes. Whatever it takes to save American lives. Those animals hate the West and all it stands for. They have no respect for any life or anybody but themselves.
Nancy in Tennessee:
Our military risk their lives everyday for us and we should carefully weigh what we are willing to do versus what in turn might be imposed on one our brave soldiers. Enhanced interrogation techniques are not justified and only a few have said this is what gave us Osama bin Laden ten years later.
Al in Delaware:
Torturing prisoners is a war crime period. I don't care what the results are. If Ahmadinejad or some other "villain of the month" tortured an American, we'd be crying for days. What a bunch of hypocrites we are. No wonder the rest of the world has no respect for us. We can't even stand up to the ideals we preach.