By every measure, it is now clear that a policy of torture has made us less safe, certainly in the long term. Even those who are arguing with the critics of torture policies (see, e.g., Porter Goss's WaPo editorial), even those are telling us that the drip, drip, drip revelations of torture are reducing our long-term national security. Their portfolio was national security and they developed and implemented horribly flawed policies that through the context of processes in a democratic and free society whose principles and security they were sworn to uphold, they point out that our national security is being compromised. It is as unconscionable as if they had willfully ignored information that allowed a terrorist attack. They should have been at least sophisticated enough, at least thoughtful enough to think this through, to project what the consequences of their policies would be. That is what we entrusted to them and that is how they failed us.

That is, the torture policy makers, with nothing left to protect themselves, in desperation, are answering your question: our moral sensitivity WAS one of the important keys to the safety of our society and they slammed the door and threw away the key.

Tasering to control a violent criminal—something many people object to, also—is similarly irrelevant to the discussion of torture.

No, don't” let's move on.” We didn't move on with “whippings” and lynchings. We put a stop to them and enforced the laws and the rules of a civilized society and nation.

If Al Qaida was an organization truly hellbent on driving the US from Iraq, why would they “send a message” of the need to keep troops there the day before Obama “secretly” landed there? This just after Cheney's mantra that we needed to keep troops there.

Is it really so hard to do the math? If you take this seed backwards in time to 911, you can see that there may not only not be one single justification for torture, but there may also be a need for prosecution.