[Ibby]

And almost all reputable primary-source accounts not from Republican candidates for office state unequivocally that not only was "enhanced interrogation" not a significant factor, and not only did tortured prisoners actually give misleading and utterly unhelpful testimony, but in fact all the prisoner-derived intel helpful to the case was either accidentally gained (that is to say, the prisoner let slip information without intending to let it slip) or given by detainees NOT subject to "enhanced" techniques or torture.

I'm not entirely willing to say that I don't think there is a time or a place for the more "mild" forms of torture - of course if one wants to make WHAT IF THE TERRORIST KNOWS WHERE THE BOMB IS AND ITS THE ONLY WAY arguments, then i grudgingly support SOME forms of "enhanced interrogation" - but I also firmly believe that in almost all cases, intelligence gained through torture is dubious at best, and even more so, that rule of law should be supreme.
If the US is to honestly act on "enhanced interrogation" techniques regarded under the Geneva Convention as torture, then I believe that the US should disengage itself from the Geneva Convention and any other international treaties that ban the actions taken.