Rhetorical question

[pecunium]

So, torture mongers and apologists explain that torture (according to the sources they choose to believe) works.

They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.

We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.

It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.

The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.

Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.

Comments

[karl-lembke.livejournal.com]

Let's be clear here. You write:

As for Karl, it's best to ignore him, on this subject(you may make your own decision on other topics). He believes torture works...

Let's be clear here.
I believe torture sometimes works.
You believe torture never works.
As I pointed out in my open letter to you here (http://karl-lembke.livejournal.com/159576.html), the truth is a bit more complicated than you like to present it.
According to the sources you choose to believe, torture never works. And since you define torture as any physical or mental coercion, you can't even detain a prisoner without torturing him, since absent coercion, the prisoner would not remain confined. (Now's your chance to clarify your definition, by the way.)
As evidence that forceful interrogation (again emphasizing that I draw the line between "torture" and "not-torture" in a slightly different place than you do) works, I cite sources you choose to disbelieve.
These include Ed Morrissey's friend here (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015994.php)

However, there are many different scenarios for interrogations, including time-critical emergencies, such as hostage rescue or impending attacks. "Effective interrogators need every range of options in these cases, including methods that use coercion to elicit information, for the different situations that our forces not only might face, but have faced. He used the examples of rescuing captured American soldiers from terrorists when we know they will be brutally tortured and murdered if not found immediately and rescued. "I'm guessing that the vast majority of Americans who vote would not have a problem with us using coercive tactics to get that kind of information from a terrorist."

Asked about interrogation guidelines, and whether more assertive methods would ever be authorized, Colonel Stuart Herrington, an expert on interrogation retired from the United States Army,
says (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7):

Yeah, well I think the answer to that is that you know, the type of information you’re trying to get is obviously situation dependent, and sometimes the situation is more critical than others, but there’s got to be, and that’s what’s going on now, a healthy deliberation, and a laying down of here are the procedures…and this has been done already, here are the procedures that are authorized, here are some more aggressive procedures that are not authorized without the approval of so and so, and here are procedures that you will never do, and so that everyone knows basically what the ground rules are, so there’s no room for hot doggery, you know?

(Emphasis added)
My point is, different situations need different techniques. Some of these techniques will be coercive.
Since you define anything the least bit coercive as "torture", then either torture works, or your definition needs some work.
I draw the line above that threshold, though I don't know exactly where it should go.

My main point is, I see the debate over where that line should be as an open one, and reasonable people can disagree.
To you, it is closed, and there are no reasonable or moral excuses for disagreeing with you.