Reading the transcript of a March 4, 2003 CNN debate about torture which is absolutely fascinating in retrospect. It opens with the question: “Following the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the question has become whether the senior al Qaeda leader will reveal key information about the terrorist network. If he doesn’t, should he be tortured to make him tell what he knows?”

Of course, we know now that as of this interview, three days after KSM’s capture, he was probably already being tortured, based purely on the math of fitting 183 waterboardings into the remainder of March.

In favor of torture, under limited circumstances: Alan Dershowitz. Unequivocally opposed, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch. “Moderating”: Wolf Blitzer.

Why is “moderating” in quotes? Because every one of his questions was actually more immoderate than the mostly-reasoned discussion of the interviewees:

BLITZER: Alan Dershowitz, a lot of our viewers will be surprised to hear that you think there are right times for torture. Is this one of those moments?

BLITZER: Alan, how do you know he doesn’t have that kind of ticking-bomb information right now?

BLITZER: Ken, under those kinds of rare, extreme circumstances, does Professor Dershowitz make a good point?

BLITZER: Well, let me interrupt, Ken. Let me ask you about a hypothetical case. There’s a terrorist attack. A lot of people have just been killed in New York. They capture one of the terrorists, who says, “Guess what, there’s another bomb out there, it is going to kill a lot more, but I’m not telling you where it is.”

BLITZER: Ken, let me just get back to that ticking time bomb scenario.

Go read the interview, and tell me that the man in that room most in favor of torture isn’t Wolf Blitzer.