Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker asks some good questions and makes some good points, for example:

When did we start punishing lawyers for producing opinions with which we disagree? And where does that road lead? . . .
[T]here are significant differences between what the Japanese did during World War II . . . and what was authorized by the U.S. government.

And in The Wall Street Journal, Victoria Toensing writes:

In the summer of 2002, the CIA outlined 10 interrogation methods that would be used only on Abu Zubaydah, who it told the lawyers was “one of the highest ranking members of” al Qaeda, serving as “Usama Bin Laden’s senior lieutenant.” According to the CIA, Zubaydah had “been involved in every major” al Qaeda terrorist operation including 9/11, and was “planning future terrorist attacks” against U.S. interests.
Most importantly, the lawyers were told that Zubaydah — who was well-versed in American interrogation techniques, having written al Qaeda’s manual on the subject — “displays no signs of willingness” to provide information and “has come to expect that no physical harm will be done to him.” When the usual interrogation methods were used, he had maintained his “unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews.”
The CIA and Department of Justice lawyers had two options: continue questioning Zubaydah by a process that had not worked or escalate the interrogation techniques in compliance with U.S. law. They chose the latter.