It's worth noting that the review didn't conduct interviews because the CIA chose not to allow its staff to cooperate, even under controlled, private sessions, because those staff were 'under jeopardy'. Having said that, it seems reasonable to assume the majority of the documents would be an accurate record. If that's not the case, it begs further questions about the CIA's conduct.
I'm still not sure I understand your point Bob and neither am I sure that the introduction of UAS strikes as an ethical comparator is helpful. However, in case it helps situate my viewpoint:
I have no issues with the application of force via unmanned aircraft. I've seen at first hand, up close and personal, the procedures used by both US and allied aircrews to ensure the chances of collateral damage are minimised, and they are extremely rigorous and well within the laws of armed conflict. I do not believe the same can be said for the CIA's use of torture, which appears to have been amateurish at best, and bordering on mis-placed revenge at worst.
Sun