Follow this link to HotAir and watch Norah O'Donnell debate Liz Cheney (Dick Cheney's daughter) about interrogation techniques. It really encapsulates most of the arguments on both sides. Liz Cheney provides one of the best and most complete arguments for our enhanced interrogation program after 9/11 that I've heard in years.
While you're there, be sure to follow Allahpundit's link to HotAir archives from 2006 which has audio of Bill Clinton scoffing at the idea that you wouldn't have 100% agreement that it would be OK to rough a guy up a little if an attack was imminent and we had someone in custody who knew the details and wouldn't talk, and that was the only way to get the information out of him and prevent the attack.
Note that this is before the liberals (and McCain) got going with their argument that "torture" does not work and/or does not produce reliable information.
The only difference I can see between Bill Clinton's described scenario and what the Bush administration was faced with was Clinton did specify in his definiton of "imminent" that we knew an attack was going down within 3 days. The problem with Clinton's definition is that it is very difficult to guage how "imminent" an attack is before the high-value terrorist detainee talks. It is reported that when they tried to interrogate Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and asked him if any further attackes were planned, he said something to the effect of "You will soon find out." In that situation, the responsible course of action for our national security apparatus to take is to assume that an attack is imminent. There could have been another attack within days or weeks, or it could have been months or even year(s) away. We did not know, but we knew we had someone in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who did. Anyone who says they would not aggressively interrogate in this scenario to obtain the information necessary to protect Americans from another attack has no business being in charge of our national security. And any country who acts like they wouldn't have done at least as much as we did in an identical scenario is lying.