Navarro spent 25 years in the FBI, with much of that time spent training others in interrogation techniques. He says treating terrorists humanely and empathizing with them works better than abusing them.
This whole debate seems to be framed as "Should we ask the CIA to torture for us?". When it comes to matters of ethics and human rights, then yes, it should be. However, the CIA have a job to do, and they have all the resources they need to do it professionally. The fact that we tortured these individuals is a major failing of the CIA. The Bush Administration failed us, but the CIA is supposed to be a professional agency that has expertise that the politicians do not. They know that torture doesn't provide good information, and for that reason, they should have pushed back against every suggestion that they do so. If it was intelligence that they were after, then they should not have tortured. Not only should people be held accountable for torture, but they should be held accountable for failing to use the best methods for information discovery when they had every chance to.
So, in a hypothetical world where torture IS a good method to get real information out of terrorists. Would it be okay to torture terrorists? Do we charge a CIA agent or officer who had the chance to torture a (possible) terrorist for information but decided against it?...but they should be held accountable for failing to use the best methods for information discovery when they had every chance to.
Possibly, but not necessarily. One could say that prison is a form of torture, but we as a society operate upon the assumption that it's a form of torture worth having for the purpose of punishment, and taking offenders off of the street. That's why I say that when it comes to matters of ethics and human rights, the question of torture should be put to us. However, when it comes to whether or not torture is how we best get information from terrorists, we best rely upon experts rather than public sentiment.