Sun Who,
Just once more, and re-phrased so as to be clear, I believe it was wrong for the CIA to use torture but I feel no less strongly about anyone elses use of torture. Both instances are legally and strategically ineffective.
By way of evidence, ISIS beheading have not furthered their strategic intent.
It might be argued that Abu Ghraib infamy didn't really undermine ours either? This is the sort of thread where 'less is more', but the horizons of strategic intent are variable of course. A friendly, or a firm friendly approach will nearly always produce long term reliability but sometimes, there isn't the luxury of that.
I offer absolutely no defence of torture but if I had loved ones going for a coffee in Sydney yesterday, I have to say, I'm glad I'm not in the shoes of those currently making the calls. I don't have the inclination to adopt the lofty high ground and I find it worrying that ignorant politicians use it as an opportunistic menu de la jour. I don't trust them in the first instance, and secondly, if we commit forces in defence of the country, it's an issue for the country to reconcile and evolve.
The solution and moral debate isn't as clear as it once was. Once more, I don't advocate torture (although I am lead to believe it can produce immediate results) but do sometimes we have to take 3 steps back to take 4 steps forward and suck up some horrific losses? In 2001, the scope and timeline of the long war wasn't as clearly defined as it is now and the world is a completely different place to the one where we subjected suspected Irish terrorists (and subsequently, proven innocent people) to white noise.