I think, first of all, that US General David Howell Petraeus is a very realistic man, someone who not only has had an excellent basic education, but has literally gained years' worth of "hands-on", "on the field" experience, surrounded by very real terrorists. He is undoubtedly also aware that the classical Army Field manual was not constructed out of "thin air", but taking into consideration the very best opinions of men (women maybe as well) who had the same type of experience during previous armed conflicts on own territory, if first generation Immigrants to the US, or in far away lands, so people who, in a sense, likely knew what they were just as realistically talking about.
US General Petraeus is also maybe aware of the concept of the General Public's Collective Consciusness, in which real-life experiences, always dependent on one's background (including but not limited to ethnic, cultural, social, national, educational, personal make-up, etc.), sometimes get mixed with virtual experiences/memories, even influences, coming from the cvasi-omnipresent Entertainment & Media Industry of high psychological impact (Hollywood-type through most of the XXth century, also with the newer on-line actually somewhat more impactful at times, more confusing maybe, due to chaotic structure and at times not easily classify-able, [in the sense of categorization & credibility ranking by someone's brain, NOT in the sense of "coding", or "insane" !]), content.
It is actually very rare in reality that one could or would obtain VALID CREDIBLE information from a RECENTLY detained terror suspect, foreign national presumed to boot (with access to NUCLEAR codes ! LOL ! Whatta real blockbuster thriller !) by: stomping on his feet, crushing his fingers into a wise, administering electric shocks (LOL ! LOL !), whipping into submission (Wow ! Ahem...), etc., etc. Now, tying up, and waterboarding are different things. I personally do consider them OK, if used appropriately in CONTEXT, in truly LIMIT situations...which, I repeat, are NOT at ALL, NOT at all likely to realistically happen. But, taking into consideration these truly LIMIT situations, I sincerely believe that the US President would actually NOT be the best person to ask for permission, although he would OBVIOUSLY have to be consulted alongside a very best team of Presidential Expert Professional (NON-POLITICAL) Advisors in order to propose and implement/sign POLICY. Policy is ONE THING, Practical Implementation of a Policy in the Field is obviously ANOTHER. On the ground, in the field, under time-pressure, I opine that it would have to be an Expert Experienced Consultant Interrogator, an as much as possible IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, HEALTHY (mind & body), MATURE, TRUSTWORTHY, EXPERIENCED individual, preferably of High Ethical Moral background as well, some sort of Ethical Panel Chairman-like person who actually comes from WITHIN the Interrogator/Evaluator Profession, who would need to be consulted to give the "go ahead". Should that person be CIA or DoD remains something to further brainstorm about in Closed Congressional Committee Sessions, I also sincerely believe. I hope this message will be of use if anybody who is somebody with connections and/or realistic access to people who really have some form of not only Executive capabilities (most of us here DO !), but also realistic Executive influence & decision-making in Washington, D.C....which given the very nature of this forum and the typical current professions & pass-times of its participants...again... is not very likely to happen or be very realistic.
Why do I even bother writing here then ? I felt it needed to be said, because I was not fully satisfied by the Yahoo news bite, nor by the NPR presentation of these Senate hearings. I have not followed them directly on C-Span myself, but I can only surmise, heraing the bit of voice from US Gem Petraeus on NPR dot org, that he has not significantly chnaged, that he continues to be decisive. I would have preferred he actually chose an Academic field upon his retirement from active military, since that field is maybe even less conducive to headaches and/or stress than the position of CIA Director, yet US Gen., Petraeus is still relatively young, he feels he still has a LOT of PRACTICAL stuff to offer to the USA, (and this is TRUE). I agree that he is making a good career choice, I worry about that eternal "town-gown" conflict, I constantly worry about the PERSONNEL of the CIA which needs to be managed literally in an orchestrated fashion, with not only professionalism, but also creativity...I worry that war does NOT actually do much about Developing creativity in most people, it actually crushes it, yet US General Petraeus is definitely NOT "most people", he is truly capable of accessing superior defenses when under pressure, (even if he may not like to admit it to either himself or in public !), plus he HAS the support of his immediate family, which is VERY important as well, during times of massive career transitions (almost as high as marriage or divorce up there on anyone's Personal Stress scale, in my book, which is slightly more stringent than the classical one devised by Holmes & Rahe in 1967, because I have adapted mine to the high-speed & economic downturns accompanying most regular people's living conditions of the XXI-st century ! And shifting jobs doe NOT really help one save money, it actually eats away savings, especially if a relocation is envisioned, affects close family members', including, obviously spouse and/or children's lives, etc. So in our days and age it IS more stressful to shift not only jobs, but careers as well than it would have been likely to have been in 1967.).
So, in conclusion, I permit myself to promise I will try to listen the full Confirmation hearing, if I catch it anywhere on the Net, to come back with any additional observations or even "advice", if I feel, (which I DOUBT), US General David Howell Petraeus needs it for the future steps needed to be undertaken by him, I urge everyone to try to find ways to measure one's stress level these days, not to forget that hi-chronic stress, especially in hi-driven type A personalities, can indeed contribute to a higher risk for developing cardio-vascular diseases, ulcers, diabetes, and other illnesses which some of us may still call psychosomatic, without any derogatory connotation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_and_Rahe_stress_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_a_personality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic
P.S. do not confuse the term I used of "Colective Consciousness" with the "Collective Unconscious" of psychiatrist C.G. Jung.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness