>What proof do you have that they effectively saved lives? If they didn't use that technique, do the "bad guys" would have really put their plan to execution and succeed at it? Was torture the only alternative or was it the simplier to use?

For some reason the assumption is that torture was used before all other means of obtaining information had been exhausted. I cannot speak for the previous 8 years (that will have to be investigated), but in the past, any form of enhanced interrogation techniques or extraordinary rendition were used as a last resort (when all other methods were exhausted) and then only when it was really felt (there was other evidence or information available) that lives were at stake and the detainee had information that could save those lives. When you question 10 people all captured at the same time or get information from 10 other people that one detainee has more information, then more pressure is put on that one detainee.

What I do not know, and at this point I don't think anyone knows yet for sure, is when those techniques were used and exactly what techniques were used. Were they commonly used or used only by a few interrogators or departments? Were they given permission in advance? Did some interrogators go outside what was permitted even internally in their departments or by the U.S. government? Were they used first? Had the other methods been exhausted? Was there any other reliable information that suggested the detainee had more information that could save lives? If some of that is the case, then the entire process was modified during the past 8 years and an investigation will show that.

Something that also needs to be remembered is that we are referring to the U.S. military in a conflict. We are not referring to civilians captured by the police here on U.S. soil.

The laws and regulations for both have never been the same. The rules of war have never been the same as U.S. laws for citizens and civilians in this country.