The Los Angeles Times leads with the CIA failing to thoroughly examine the value of "harsh" interrogation techniques despite calls to do so as early as 2003. "The limited resources spent examining whether the interrogation measures worked were in stark contrast to the energy the CIA devoted to collecting memos declaring the program legal," says the LAT. The New York Times leads with Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government resisting pleas by the United States to reconcile with former Baathists. The NYT say Maliki's intransigence "could become one of the biggest obstacles to stability in Iraq." The Washington Post leads with the World Health Organization fearing a potential swine flu pandemic. The outbreak has killed as many as 81 people in Mexico, where folks are afraid to go outside. Eleven Americans are also likely infected.

The LAT says that in the seven years the CIA used "severe interrogation techniques" on terrorist suspects, the agency never sought "a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary." In 2003, the agency's inspector general recommended a study by outside experts on whether the techniques worked, but Porter Goss, the CIA's former director, "turned instead to two former government officials with little background in interrogation." The Times says the resulting memos were limited in scope, led to no change in policy, and were not seen by Bush administration officials who spoke with the paper.

The administration that used these techniques may not have seriously considered their effectiveness, but the administration that banned them has set up a task force to study the matter. It's hard to see how the results will be anything but "unclear," the conclusion reached by the WP in its front-page report on the effectiveness of "harsh questioning." The Post focuses on the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who some officials say coughed up valuable intelligence. Here's the problem: "[W]hether harsh tactics were decisive in Mohammed's interrogation may never be conclusively known, in large part because the CIA appears not to have tried traditional tactics for much time, if at all."

You could spend all of Sunday reading the myriad opinion pieces on torture. In one of the more interesting columns, the NYT's public editor, Clark Hoyt, outlines the paper's internal debate over the use of the T-word. The Times prefers to describe the Bush administration's interrogation techniques as "harsh," though it recently moved up to "brutal." Why doesn't the Times use the word torture? Because "[r]eporters and editors need to leave moral and political judgments to editorial writers and readers," says Hoyt. But if that's so, why does the Times trot out the word torture when describing the actions of other countries?

Following the NYT's example, the WP finds itself in the odd position of referring to "harsh questioning" before describing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogation, which included beatings, a forced enema, sleep deprivation, stress positions, extensive water-boarding, and being repeatedly slammed into a plywood wall, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The WP's David Broder also seems to fear the T-word, putting it in quotation marks. Yet he boldly describes America's use of "painful coercion" techniques as "one of the darkest chapters of American history." Nevertheless, Broder says attempts to bring the enablers of torture—ahem, painful coercion—to justice are motivated by "an unworthy desire for vengeance." Not the rule of law? Broder also says the recently released memos on torture were the result of a "deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision." But that's not what the NYT reported last week or what the LAT reports today.

Michael Scheuer joins the torture debate in the WP, bemoaning "the bipartisan dismantling of America's defenses based on the requirements of presidential ideology." Scheuer would seem to be a credible source on the matter, having served as chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit. So it's too bad his op-ed reads like it was written by an angry child who thinks he's right and everyone else (Democrats, Republicans, whoever) is wrong. For a more measured take on the negative consequences for the CIA, see Walter Pincus' opinion piece.

In other news, on Saturday Hillary Clinton made a surprise trip to Iraq, where the United States has tried to play matchmaker between Nouri al-Maliki and former Baathist officials. In its lead story, the NYT reports that the prime minister has resisted America's efforts, despite paying lip service to reconciliation. Maliki's main adviser on the issue told the Times that the government had "fundamental differences" with Washington over how far to extend reconciliation. He wants the Baathists to renounce their party affiliation and admit their crimes. It's unclear what the Baathists want, other than an outstretched hand.

TP has a sincere question for the NYT regarding its lead story: Do you think it's responsible to continue using Ahmad Chalabi as a source, not just of opinions (Paragraph 13) but of information (Paragraph 20)?

Back on the home front, last week New York magazine chronicled the petulant "collective moan" rising from Wall Street, as the wealthy lose some of their wealth. But for those who've kept their jobs, things are turning around. The NYT reports, "Workers at the largest financial institutions are on track to earn as much money this year as they did before the financial crisis began, because of the strong start of the year for bank profits."