> Because of course any intelligent analysis of the
> cost/benefit of torture can only conclude that the costs
> far exceed the benefits.
I think this is wishful thinking. It's precisely this kind of cost/benefit analysis which leads otherwise-right-thinking-people to conclude that "sometimes that's what you gotta do" -- it's only by *resisting* a cost/benefit calculation in the first place that you can deal with the "torture question" on a moral basis.
The problem is that this kind of behavior is much more like venture investing than picking which pants to buy: if you lose 99/100 $5M bets you make but the 100th one returns $5B ... is anyone *sure* that the initial $495M was mis-spent? And of course: you can't know what it will return until you do it.
That's the "one percent solution" for you.
/jordan