Geez, I do not check L&P for a day and I am lost...
I guess it all comes down to your required level of validation. Some people want facts. They want testimony of experienced and educated people but they also want case studies, scientific reasoning, and real accounts to back up those statements. Such as General Patraeus who made statements that are backed up by case studies, expert opinion, and collected relative data.
Other people are happy just saying "this guy said this" and then not really requiring any real life evidence beyond that. They will even ignore the fact that they later change their story. Such as George Bush or one of his appointees saying so and then not backing it up with anything beyond "because I said so."
When it comes to retrieving accurate and reliable information my own personal experience shows me torture is not effective, the scientific evidence suggests torture is not effective, top officials in the field (who are not in political positions) support this belief, and basic common sense also supports it.
I will never be someone that turns my back and just believes a politician on his word. Especially when the said politician is a proven liar and when that word defies all relevant data.
If you (by you I mean anyone and not a specific person) want to be this naive go ahead. Although I doubt you are and that you most likely want to support this idea because it validates your own personal desire for revenge (which is in part understandable). But I would ask anyone willing to accept the word of Bush and his appointees on this without empirical data, how far do you tkat that mindset? Do you pick and chose when you decide to believe him without question or do you just believe him when his stance mirrors your own? When a similar politician says guns are a danger to society do you agree with them since they are in a position of power and experience or do you demand proof?
It also comes down to whether you want to play semantics games. Saying torture is bad, unless they are not wearing a uniform is a game that the adminstration wants you to play. They want you to say "some people do not count...regardless of their guilt or innocence." It is funny how these people like to play word games with treaties and agreements about torture and humane treatment. They will wiggle around wording and argue that things not spelled out explicitly are not disallowed but they will argue that the spirit of the law and general meaning is relevant when it regards the 2nd.