Oh, boy. Did you not have civics classes in junior high--you know, "American Government," and the rest?
See, the way this works (or is supposed to) in this country, everything the military does is subject to civilian oversight. Sometimes, we elect representatives who do the overseeing, especially when there's information that shouldn't just be floating around loose.
But see, in a democracy, what you DON'T do is to let the military and the spies do whatever they wish without any oversight at all. See, among other things, our representatives are supposed to be checking to make sure that what the soldiers and the spies are doing doesn't violate our Constitution, our laws, and our international treaties. See, the idea is that democracies are wiser than autocracies and last longer, because in the long run their frivolous insistence upon scrutiny, acccountability, morality pays off practically.
Oh yeah--and just generally speaking? See, in a democracy, the idea is that the People, yes the People, are collectively wiser than the experts. it's a frustrating and sloppy way to run a government--but as Churchill noted, "Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable--except for all the others."
But idealism aside, the problem you're having is that you have NO, repeat NO evidence whatsover of a case in which torture (at least you're now using the word) yielded such significant results that you can even reasonably argue for its necessity.
