The Bush administration's detainee interrogation tactics are front and center in a new U.S. Senate intelligence committee report that implicates Condoleeza Rice as an early proponent of torture techniques. While Liz Cheney and other former Bush officials defend tactics such as waterboarding as a means to prevent terror, we are tracking ways in which societies elsewhere have responded to revelations of state torture.

Susan Benesch at the Huffington Post draws parallels with Argentina and Chile, where early attempts to forgive officials accused of torture during military regimes in the 1970s and 1980s have more recently led to criminal trials and imprisonment. Just two weeks ago, former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori received a 25 year prison sentence from Peru's Supreme Court for his role in massacres of left-wing rebels in the 1990s.

And at Real Clear Politics, Pierre Atlas proposes the U.S. look to the U.K. and Israel, whose judiciaries struck down the use of torture to fight perceived terror threats posed by Irish and Palestinians respectively. Meanwhile, this week's U.S. Senate intelligence report itself notes that waterboarding was previously the domain of brutal despots like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Can the U.S. draw useful lessons from global responses to state torture? Or will Americans chart a new and unique path to reconciliation?

The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President al-Bashir. He is charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for the crisis in Darfur. But al-Bashir and many in the Arab and African world remain defiant and refuse to recognize the court's decision. Most western media outlets immediately vilified al-Bashir, while Arab, African and Chinese media support the president and ask the question: if al-Bashir can be accused of these crimes, why not the leaders of Israel or the U.S?

SOURCES: ABC News, U.S.; NBC News, U.S.; BBC, U.K.; SABC, South Africa; TV5, France; CCTV, China; Al Jazeera English, Qatar; Sudan TV, Sudan; Press TV, Iran.

This week, Global Pulse is covering the controversy surrounding last week's International Criminal Court decision to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Human rights activists hope the court's action, the first against a sitting head of state, will end the bloodshed that has flared in Darfur since 2003. But many Sudan watchers worry that the warrant could set off further tensions, including a resurgence of a decades-long, north-south civil war.

The Christian Science Monitor examines how Sudan's move this week to expel 13 international aid groups cuts Darfur's humanitarian effort in half, placing over 1 million people at risk for starvation. Likewise, BBC News predicts that rising desperation in Darfur could trigger renewed conflict in south Sudan, where rebel groups have long sought political recognition from the Sudanese government.

Meanwhile, guest columnists at the Huffington Post and the Washington Post call on the Obama administration to use the ICC warrant as justification for a stepped-up military campaign in Sudan. Today's kidnapping of 3 Doctors Without Borders workers in Darfur may further stoke the fire of the military interventionists.

Should the international community enforce ICC wishes and arrest Bashir, even if by military means? Or will enforcement of the court's wishes only lead to further humanitarian catastrophe?