[ ... Bill Explains Why Torture Is Bad, M'Kay? ... ]
You're not listening, as usual. What I'm saying is that once your goons torture someone and get a 'good lead' out of them[*], it's very difficult to disabuse them (or their bosses) of the idea that the torture 'caused' the information, or frankly that it doesn't do that in general. Regardless of whether it's true or not!
Listen carefully: I am not a proponent of torture. Let me say that one more time, because you clearly are just off on a wild tear about being the only person on the list who has questions about the use of torture: I am not a proponent of torture.
All I'm saying is that if you do your smarty-pants "cost/benefit analysis" you will lose the argument to an asshole who has gotten lucky. If you read the original posting, you'll see that EVEN SCALIA has done that math (coming up with a different result than you, 'natch), and he's, no doubt, smarter than you.
/jordan
[*] Yes! It does happen! Sometimes you pick someone up who does have actionable information and "Yes, you can!" beat it out of them (never mind how else you might have gotten the same information). This is what has happened in the last few years: a few people got "good" information tortured out of them, and the results have gone all the way to the top. This is why it's very important to not just say "Well, everyone knows that it's unreliable" -- because the people who have seen it "work" will just think you're an idiot. Dick Cheney, for example, thinks you're an idiot, and he's willing to say it on National TV. You must -- if you're looking to oppose the use of torture in a civilized society -- you absolutely must address the moral issue and not the cost/benefit issue. If you try to do a cost/benefit analysis YOU WILL LOSE.