The following piece was co-written by Matthew Alexander, Joe Navarro and Lieutenant General Robert Gard (USA-Ret.) They are pictured from left to right.

Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a special operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of “How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.” He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.

Joe Navarro, a former FBI counterintelligence and counterterrorism expert, is an adjunct faculty member at the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.

Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA-Ret.) is president emeritus at the Monterey Institute for International Studies and a senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

The views expressed are their own.

President Obama decided not to release a new group of detainee abuse photographs because he believes they would inflame our enemies and threaten American troops. Indeed, the shocking photos from Abu Ghraib have served as a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and have sparked outrage across the world.

It is not the release of the photos, however, that would elicit horror and anger. It is their brutal content and the misguided policies they reflect. The controversy surrounding the photos and the president’s release of four Department of Justice memos have brought into sharp focus a debate that has been in the shadows of public discourse for several years: Should the U.S. include torture and cruelty in its counterterrorism arsenal?

Since it has become clear that the U.S. authorized and carried out a torture program, defenders of the policy have repeated half-truths and outright deceptions about its effectiveness. In 2007, CIA officer John Kiriakou appeared on ABC News claiming waterboarding broke senior al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in “30, 35 seconds.” Kiriakou’s statements were widely reported and used to portray waterboarding as a harmless procedure despite the fact that he had no first-hand knowledge of Zubaydah’s interrogation—he wasn’t even in the same country when it occurred.

Former FBI agent Ali Soufan contradicted these and other false claims in a Senate hearing on interrogation practices. Experienced interrogators like Soufan prefer to use a technique that relies on “outwitting the detainee by using a combination of interpersonal, cognitive, and emotional strategies to get the information needed.”

Soufan testified that by interrogating Zubaydah using this approach, he obtained valuable intelligence in less than an hour. Further, when another interrogation team introduced harsher techniques, Zubaydah “shut down and stopped talking.” Al Qaeda members, Soufan explained, are trained to withstand torture.

The reality is Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. This puts a serious hole in the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario that advocates of torture repeatedly return to.

As the validity of such justifications is repeatedly dismissed, attempts to rationalize torture are getting increasingly desperate. At last month’s hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) claimed, “one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work.” To which Ali Soufan responded, “Because, sir, there’s a lot of people who don’t know how to interrogate, and it’s easier to hit somebody than outsmart them.”

Among policymakers and the public, there appears to be a fundamental, widespread misunderstanding of how effective interrogation works. Senator Graham questioned Professor David Luban about exploiting a detainee’s phobia of spiders. The experts—who have spent years interrogating the toughest, most dangerous people in the world—know that smart interrogation is not about terrorizing detainees.

We should be careful not to overlook other forceful reasons for not using torture. The public debate often disregards—to the detriment of the U.S. interests—the profound damage done by violating U.S. law and international legal obligations prohibiting not only torture but even cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Our prestige and power, our respect for the rule of law and respect for the rights of humankind are inextricably tied to preserving America’s ideals.

The most critical aspect of this scandal, especially in terms of immediate implications for our national security, has to do with the international community. Our relationships with long-standing and vital allies have been greatly strained. With the rising influence of non-state actors and an ever-increasing level of interdependence and unpredictability amongst nations, the need for trusted partners has never been greater; this is especially evident with regards to the threat of terrorism and the strength of extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Throughout our history, the values that we protected—respect for our common humanity and the rule of law—set a standard to which the rest of the world aspired. As Senator John McCain said, “[T]his isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are.”

Regaining our moral leadership in the international community is contingent on publicly—and unmistakably—casting aside a policy and strategy that flouts our laws and corrupts our values. We must continue to lead where we want others to follow by demonstrating that our principles and our practices are indistinguishable from one another.

Now that the panic over the H1N1 flu strain has somewhat subsided, experts are contemplating what role Twitter played in helping the virus, commonly known as swine flu, go viral.

The H1N1 virus has caused around 6,500 infections in 33 countries and 65 people have died so far, according to the World Health Organization. Common seasonal flu kills up to 500,000 people a year worldwide.

So did Twitter put the media before the message and escalate anxieties by propagating rumors of biological attack and pork production infection?

Or did the Twittersphere prove itself to be the first choice in information for the wired era?

Tell us what you think.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick spoke at a Thomson Reuters Newsmaker on March 31st  in front of an invited audience and announced a $50 billion programme to counter a decline in global trade.

Zoellick, who once called for a  “Facebook for multilateral economic diplomacy”, also agreed to answer questions from bloggers, which our social media team had collected via Twitter and on this blog ahead of the Newsmaker.

You can watch video of the social media session here and follow the Newsmaker chatter on our Great Debate Twitter channel.

In “The Wall Street Journal of Atmospheric Sciences“, Stuart Gaffin, a climate researcher at Columbia University, takes on the newspaper’s presentation of global warming.

“They have fed their readers so much misinformation and confusion one can only conclude they consider complete fabrication fair play in the discussion,” Gaffin writes.

Holman Jenkins, a Wall Street Journal columnist and member of the WSJ editorial board, rejected the critique, stating:

Mr. Gaffin seems to read “climate” as “atmosphere” and my statement as suggesting we know nothing of any kind about how the atmosphere might behave in response to rising CO2 levels. But that’s not what I said. I’m talking about what everyone actually cares about, whether the net result is a warming climate that will continue to warm in detriment to the presumed interests of humanity.

Gaffin replied:

Mr. Jenkins seems strangely unaware that the warming of the 20th century has coincided with 20th century increases in CO2. Also the current rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases increases are extraordinarily unprecedented during the last 2000 years of human civilization (see figure below), which is no doubt the most important period to consider for modern society.

Earlier this month, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argued that Africa needs Western countries to cut long term aid that has brought dependency, distorted economies and fuelled bureaucracy and corruption. The comments on the blog posting suggested that many readers agreed. In a response, Savio Carvalho, Uganda country director for aid agency Oxfam GB, says that aid can help the continent escape poverty - if done in the right way:

In early January, I travelled to war-ravaged northern Uganda to a dusty village in Pobura and Kal parish in Kitgum District. We were there to see the completion of a 16km dirt road constructed by the community with support from Oxfam under an EU-funded programme.

The road is bringing benefits in the form of access to markets, education and health care. Some parents say their daughters feel safer walking to school on the road instead of through the bushes. Many families have used the wages earned from construction work to pay for school fees and medical treatment. This is the impact of aid.

Having lived and worked in east Africa, I have witnessed the positive effects of aid. But done badly, it can be very limiting and even has the potential to create more harm. To avoid this, it must be provided within an enabling environment in which it is used as a catalyst for change and not as an end in itself. Governments must show leadership through an accountable system.

For individuals, access to resources – including aid - is like an investment. Aid can build up poor people’s assets, support good governance and enhance skills and capacities to bring about transformation. But it can become a bane when it makes communities dependent, lazy and hopeless. Governments, aid agencies and the United Nations need to ensure the delivery of aid is well planned and coordinated, leading to higher self-reliance among poor communities.

Aid is also beneficial when trade is fair. There are several examples in Africa, like the case of coffee farmers in Uganda, where aid has been used effectively to improve the overall quality of the coffee seeds, thereby giving farmers better prices for their produce. When they have access to markets at home and abroad, they generate income which is ploughed back into increased output, better access to health and education, and overall improvement in the quality of their lives. To make this happen, developed countries need to stop procrastinating and put in place fair trade practices.

Aid works well if governments are accountable – in other words, when they are responsible and encourage active citizenship. On this continent, civil society is still weak and needs to be nourished. But stopping aid will not resolve frustrations about poor governance, which is partly a result of weak public scrutiny. Aid should be used to help fight corruption and promote accountability through active input from ordinary people.

As I have argued here, receiving aid is not just an act of charity. It should be understood as the right of poor communities to a life of dignity. As stated in international conventions, people have a right to good health, food, water and education. We all need to ensure the planet’s resources are equitably distributed. As Mahatma Gandhi said, you must be the change you want to see in the world.

So what do you think? Which argument is most convincing?

President Barack Obama inherits a distinctly gloomy outlook for progress in settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is change really possible?

Reuters asked Oliver McTernan, the director a UK charity called Forward Thinking and two experts from the Brookings Institution in Washington — former Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk and Kenneth Pollack — what steps the Obama administration should take next in the Middle East.

By Daniela Kroslak, Deputy Africa Program Director, and Andrew Stroehlein, Communications Director, of the International Crisis Group, Any views expressed are their own.

Pirates, Islamists, refugees, anarchy, civil war — not much good news has come out of Somalia in the last couple of decades. With warlord replacing warlord over the years and transitional governments constantly hovering between extremely weak and non-existent on the ground, the temptation will be to view this week’s election of a new Somali president with an eye-rolling, “so what?”

Yet there is a chance, albeit a slim one, that this moment will mark the start of some small progress for the shattered country. That is, if the international community plays the next few months very carefully and does not let ideology trump pragmatism.

The first reason to feel any hint of optimism is that Ethiopian troops, who invaded Somalia in December 2006, are now leaving. Ethiopia’s occupation was an unprecedented disaster. The last two years have been among the worst since Somalia descended into anarchy in 1991, with huge displacement of civilians, a massive humanitarian crisis and grave violations of human rights.

The Ethiopian military campaign, combined with US bombings of suspected militant hide-outs, also set in motion a chain of events that in mid-2008 culminated in the recapture of much of the country’s south by the hard-line Islamist insurgent group, Al-Shabaab. They used the Ethiopian presence to rally support from and recruit amongst those marginalised by the transitional government, and they radicalised the Islamist movement.

The way Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed was elected president of Somalia — a title representing more hope than actual authority over the fractured country — inspires little confidence in itself. A reformulated Somali parliament in exile, part of UN-sponsored reconciliation efforts known as the “Djibouti process” after the city where it resides, chose him from a list of 14 other bickering leaders, and the vote only happened because of external pressure from the UN, AU, EU and US. These Somali actors have generally been living in a “Djibouti bubble”, out of touch with what is unfolding back home and enjoying little credibility among Somalis.

Still, the situation on the ground hands Sheik Sharif a few good cards to play. As a moderate Islamist himself and former chairman of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), an alliance that ruled southern Somalia for six months in 2006, he could be well placed to win over other Islamist elements outside the process and undercut support for the extremists of Al-Shabaab.

Sheik Sharif’s installation is significant as he is the first Islamist leader to become head of state with Western support in the Horn of Africa, hopefully reflecting a pragmatic shift in Western attitudes towards political Islam and efforts to contain militant jihadism. But Sheikh Sharif is in danger of being outflanked by the radicals in his camp. He will have to strike a difficult balance between Ethiopia’s tight embrace and a still hostile opposition, and he will have to weight carefully Somalia’s complex regional interests and clan loyalties.

If Sheik Sharif had clear and substantial backing from the international community in these efforts, including renewed Saudi support to engage with Al-Shabaab, it would make success more likely. In practical terms, this would mean politically and financially supporting a number of steps and encouraging the UN Special Representative, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, to facilitate them.

First and foremost, Sheik Sharif and the international community have to make use of all intermediaries and back channels to reach out to the insurgent groups currently outside the Djibouti process, including Al-Shabaab, as well as the Asmara-based leaders of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia. They must be prepared to draw in to the negotiations members of groups which have control on the ground, even if their current leadership refuses.

The point is to get as many more radical groups and individual leaders on board for the negotiation of a comprehensive ceasefire as a step towards expanded Djibouti talks. Once a credible ceasefire agreement has been reached, each faction should be left to administer its respective territory temporarily and be invited to participate in talks intended to lead to the restoration of a legitimate government. The parties could then establish smaller sub-groups to negotiate issues such as: drafting a new constitution; integrating all armed forces into a common army and police force; planning for a national referendum on the new constitution; and establishing transitional justice processes to address the needs of national reconciliation.

If participants in the Djibouti process encourage influential clan leaders, business community leaders, clerics and civil society to create momentum and grassroots support for that process, its prospects for success will be improved.

The biggest obstacle to peace in Somalia this time may in fact not be Somalis’ infamously fractious politics but the reluctance of the international community to engage with the Islamist opposition. However, if there is going to be a lasting settlement that returns even a semblance of stability to the country, Islamists cannot be excluded.

If they are kept out of the process, the extremist Islamists will maintain the upper hand and, quite simply, there will be no process. In that case, peace would, yet again, remain a distant illusion for Somalia’s suffering population.

The following is a guest contribution. Reuters is not responsible for the content and the views expressed are the authors' alone. Sarah Sayeed is Program Associate and Matthew Weiner is Program Director at the Interfaith Center of New York.

By Sarah Sayeed and Matthew Weiner

A Canadian judge recently ruled that a Toronto Muslim woman must take off her face veil while giving testimony in a sexual assault trial. This tension between public space and private religion comes up repeatedly in western urban centers where Muslim women increasingly occupy the pubic square.  This time it happened in Toronto, but the issue arises regularly in western countries in the schools, workplaces and courtrooms that Muslims increasingly share with the majority population. At stake is whether a Muslim woman's choice to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs infringes upon "our way of life."

(Photo: Sultaana Freeman testifies in court for right to wear a niqab on her Florida driver's license, 27 May 2003/pool)

While all can agree that identity, tolerance and religious freedom are important, advocates for the face veil emphasize the upholding of freedom while opponents focus on the face veil, or niqab, as a challenge to collective identity.  Such tension between public expression of religion and collective identity is not new.  It has even gone on for centuries in Muslim countries, where religious minorities feel the tension between acceptance and their need to adapt, in varying degrees, to a Muslim majority worldview.  There is also a debate within Muslim communities about whether wearing the niqab is a religious requirement.

What seems problematic in the current debate, whether in Toronto or Milan, is the implication that Europeans and North Americans are willing to tolerate differences, but only up to a limit.   Some differences seem too threatening for them to consider seriously.  They seem to think some differences should be made invisible.  Thus, and perhaps inadvertently, the opponents of the niqab - who see themselves as the defenders of collective identity - call into question another value and practice that is central to Western democracy: open dialogue in the public sphere.

Ever since the Enlightenment, Westerners have agreed that tolerance and open discussion in a public space helps prevent violence and fosters community. It is a proud tradition. The great moral effect of creating a public space was that people from different traditions, with different views and different styles of conversing, could join in a shared process.  Tolerance - putting up with something you do not agree with - is understood here as an uncomfortable but necessary virtue.

(Photo: Female Saudi pharmacist in Jeddah, 4 June 2007/Susan Baaghil)

In deliberative democracy, each side or point of view must be given a chance to express itself and be subject to deliberation.  No side of the debate should be suppressed or dismissed without due consideration. However the niqab, when allowed into the public square, is a message that by itself questions the very boundaries of what is public versus private.  It is a mode of dress that suggests a different social order, a different public square.

Should people who cover their faces (and their mouths) speak and deliberate in the public square with those who do not?  There seem to be several good reasons for saying yes.

While it may be genuinely strange for us to encounter people with their heads and faces covered, it need not violate the principles of public space or democratic discourse.  Orthodox Jews are not supposed to shake hands or interact too closely with the opposite sex. This is accepted.  Advocates of public space need to recognize that if the public is genuinely democratic, every minority voice needs an opportunity to participate on their terms.  While this necessarily changes how discourse takes place, it is possible that the change will strengthen rather than threaten the collective.

Secondly, if women wearing a niqab are not permitted to engage in the public square in Western societies, the ripple effects may even impede the democratization of Muslim societies and keep Muslim women out of public life.  People who hold their religious values dear may choose -- or worse, be forced -- to remain out of the public square if they are not permitted to enter on their own terms.

(Photo: University graduate in Sanaa, Yemen, 30 July 2008/Khaled Abdullah)

If a community cannot express itself publicly in a way true to their own identity, what will this lead to?  Who will it exclude? What effect will such exclusion have, not only on the community at large, but on minorities' ability to integrate in a way that maintains their identity?  And what will the impact of slow democratization in Muslim nations have for women's rights and the larger global fabric?

There does not seem to be an easy answer, either to these questions or to the debate at hand. But deciding what makes the public square public and how people participate in public deliberation goes beyond the simple debate of religious freedom and national identity.  What is important for now is that someone spearhead a healthy discussion that seeks to think through these nuances, as opposed to the current polarized debate that simply compounds a growing divide between communities. Sadly, some who call for a dialogue with Muslims start with the proviso that Muslim women follow their standards for what is properly public.  This is not a partnership-based beginning.  Rather it will be the communities who move in the direction of real conversation, with openness to change, that will deserve to be called defenders of the pubic sphere.

President Barack Obama set a $500,000 annual pay cap on Wednesday for executives at companies getting taxpayer bailouts as part of a wider process to clamp down on excessive corporate pay.

The new rules would require banks and other companies that get government funds in the future to abide by the new cap going forward, with any additional compensation being limited to restricted stock that does not vest until government funds are paid back.

The following are comments from the market on the new plan. Add your own view in the comments section.

BRADY DOUGAN, CREDIT SUISSE CEO

“The industry will need to find a balance. There have clearly been excesses. Clearly, a lot of performance issues in 2008. Clearly, it is natural that compensation should be down a lot.

“But in the long run, we are still going to need to find a balance between making sure we have appropriate shareholder returns, making sure also that there are some incentives and some ability to build wealth for people who work in the business.

“Maybe a lot of the things that have happened and the direction they are going may help to achieve a better balance … between shareholder return and employee return in the business In the short run there is obviously a lot of noise about the compensation playing field. Actually, right now with regards to attracting employees it’s actually got much more to a point where people are just most interested in being part of a platform that they think is going to be successful and durable.

“I actually think it’s a move away from just: How much can I get paid here? How much can I get paid there? But actually people … being more interested in being part of a platform where they think they can build a career in the long term.”

LAUREN SMITH, ANALYST AT KEEFE, BRUYETTE & WOODS

“There is certainly a possibility” of talent flight from the big firms to the smaller investment banks if there are compensation limits.

“If those big firms that have taken TARP capital will have a noose around the neck with what they can pay people — and we can argue whether that was too much or not — I think we will see some of that.

“(But) you would go to a Lazard, Greenhill, Evercore because of the difference in the business model relative to the big firms and because of the cultural aspects. It’s a real cultural divide.”

MARK POERIO, PARTNER AT LAW FIRM PAUL HASTINGS

“I think it is going to warp the talent pool in many respects. If you have someone who was making well over $1 million, and now they are capped at $500,000, it is very conceivable that they are going to look to go to a company that is not subject to those limitations.

“It’s a very difficult situation because it is hard for the government to really step in and, on a broad basis, just legislate executive compensation … One size fits all has never worked. It is an understandable effort but it is a dangerous one.”

DAVID KOTOK, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER AT CUMBERLAND

“This is pure political grandstanding. If the limit has bite, it will be counterproductive and the unintended consequences will hurt the US as skilled and bright senior managers make choices.

“If the limits have loopholes, they are a sham. Industrial policies fail. So will this one.”

U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER

“I think if anybody is looking to the taxpayer to help bail their company out, these kind of executive compensation limits are appropriate.”

Asked if $500,000 is the appropriate cap, he said: “I think somebody’s got to pick a number, the president has picked one, I applaud him for doing it.”

U.S. REP. MIKE PENCE, INDIANA REPUBLICAN

“I would say to Wall Street, be careful what you wish for. Maybe it is going to wake up American business — that there is a cost when you invite the 800 pound gorilla of government into your boardroom.”

Pence said he had opposed the banking bailout to begin with because he thought it was unfair for “taxpayers on Main Street to bail out bad decisions on Wall Street.”

But now that it is underway: “I have no problem with the salary caps. But it is an argument for why government should not be in the bailout business to begin with,” Pence told reporters. “Anyone who has been willing, as most of these institutions were, to support government-sponsored bailouts, ought to be willing now to go along with their new dance partner” and accept the salary caps.

MICHAEL HOLLAND, FOUNDER OF HOLLAND & CO, OVERSEES MORE THAN $4 BILLION, NEW YORK

“It’s the movement of the financial capital from New York to Washington. The recipients of the government money now have to face the chairman of their compensation committee — and that’s Barack Obama.

“The world has shifted. Washington is hitting the reset button for Wall Street’s compensations.

“I would say it’s at least a stealth nationalization. It’s occurring.”

PETER KENNY, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT KNIGHT EQUITY MARKETS IN JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY

“There are two ways you can look at it. Here’s the way that’s going to get people’s attention: Obama just threw a bucket of ice cold Washington D.C. water on the mentality of Wall Street by limiting executive pay. I’m agnostic about whether this is good or bad for the market. It’s just very sobering.

“There’s a lot of upward movement in the financials today because something is being addressed. There’s actual traction in terms of formulating and instituting a policy around TARP. That’s why you’re seeing not an enormous move to the upside, though it is in positive territory.

“The other thing you need to look at is sector rotation. Leadership is being aggressively sought after by investors and they’re finding it in place we haven’t looked in a while. One of those places is shipping, believe it or not, because it speaks to the global trade agenda. You’re seeing 12 consecutive days in the Baltic Dry Goods index, which we haven’t seen in well over a year. Things like that are early outliers of early stabilization of the market.”

JOHN O’BRIEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MKM PARTNERS LLC, CLEVELAND

“That could really affect a lot of talent at some of these financial institutions. Personally, if I was a senior level executive and had a choice to go to public company or a private company, I would go private. There’s more pay for performance as opposed to pay for government level.

PETER MORICI, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR

“There are loopholes in this: basically the stock options loophole and the fact that it only applies to the top executives. A lot of the problem this time around was with the people below the top, so this really doesn’t reform the compensation structure.”

JAMES MCGLYNN, PORTFOLIO MANAGER, SUMMIT INVESTMENT PARTNERS, CINCINNATI, OHIO

“We have about 359 institutions who have taken government money, and now because of that they’ll have to abide by these caps, and other draconian measures. So if you can get out of the TARP, you are going to do it as fast as possible, and that’s a good thing for everybody.

“It’s a good stick to have over my head … the longer I’m in this plan I’m not a private enterprise. Part of it has to be, can you replace it with capital? Some took capital so that banks like Citi don’t look weak, alone. If I’m in a corporate boardroom of one of those 359, my game plan would be how could I replace this in the capital market? And, is there a prepayment penalty?”

(Reporting by Lisa Jucca in Zurich; Vikram Subhedar in Bangalore; Susan Cornwell in Washington; and Martha Graybow, Phil Wahba, Ryan Vlastelica, Deepa Seetharaman, Al Yoon and Paritosh Bansal in New York))

Davos leaders have traditionally looked to the long term and have largely been keen on helping all nations of the world to benefit from economic development. But with politicians and businesses tied up with short term concerns about the economic crisis there’s a risk at least that efforts to spread development and to ward against the threat of climate change may go on hold, at least for a time. Reuters News asked delegates at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting to share their thoughts on whether we should be concerned about development and sustainability slipping down the global agenda.