Of course the lefty liblab moonbats are the only ones who think torture is a bad idea:
The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.
Correction. That's the U.S. military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency describing the use of waterboarding and other "extreme duress" methods in a memo just tonight revealed by the Washington Post.
ADDING...
The JPRA entirely debunked Scarborough's favorite ticking nuke 24 argument:
The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life-has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
And another passage showing that the hands-off George Piro "rapport" approach works:
As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.
90 percent effective. Versus torture -- which is almost never effective.
This is undeniable evidence refuting a wide variety of the pro-torture arguments.