The Washington Post's story assessing waterboarding as effective drew anti-torture criticism that was both expected and unexpected, but "enhance interrogation" advocates are making interesting insights as well.

• Morals Alone  Ann Althouse wrote that the story would "force the moralists to get by on moral ideals alone." She elaborated, "Washington Post has said that the techniques — whatever you want to call them — were effective, and, if this is true, it means that people who oppose their use are deprived of a pragmatic argument they normally make."

• The Honest Struggle  Allahpundit, conceding that torture is "morally problematic," wrote that anti-torture "absolutism" may no longer be so simple. Torture critics, he wrote, should "join the rest of us in honestly struggling with whether the ends of possibly saving innocent lives is justified by the means of inflicting suffering on someone in custody. And given how most Americans would resolve that dilemma — and how Obama’s interrogation team will surely resolve it if, god forbid, the situation ever presents itself — that’s not something they have any incentive to do."

• National Security  On Fox News Sunday, Dick Cheney reiterated his long-held argument that a policy of waterboarding makes us safer. "I think the evidence is overwhelming that the EITs were crucial in getting them to cooperate, and that the information they provided did in fact save thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks against the United States," he said. "The thing I keep coming back to time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we've gone for eight years without another attack. Now, how do you explain that? The critics don't have any solution for that. They can criticize our policies, our way of doing business, but the results speak for themselves."

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at mfisher at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.