There have been a number of torture apologists claiming that the use of torture was necessary to save American lives. This is an attempt to confuse the issue, however, and I think the refutation is easy for anyone to understand. Consider the following hypothetical situation:
You are walking along the shore of a lake, when you hear someone crying for help. You look out onto the lake and you see a floundering swimmer who is clearly unable to make it back to shore. You notice a rowboat tied up on the dock near you; the boat is clearly marked "PRIVATE PROPERTY". However, knowing it is the only way you could save the swimmer, you borrow without asking (a.k.a. "steal") the rowboat, head out onto the lake, and save the swimmer.
Now, have you committed a crime? Absolutely -- you took the rowboat without permission. But should you be prosecuted for it? I think most people would agree that the answer is 'absolutely not'. You were trying to save the drowning person's life, and that factor mitigates the inconvenience to the rowboat's owner.
Hypothetical #2 under the fold:
Now lets consider a slightly different situation.
You are walking along the shore of a lake. You notice a rowboat tied up on the dock near you; the boat is clearly marked "PRIVATE PROPERTY". You then take the rowboat and head out onto the lake, saying "There might be someone drowning out there!"
Note that unlawful actions taken in the two situations are exactly the same. You took someone's rowboat. And yet seeking prosecution in the second sitation seems quite straightforward. So what's difference between the two situations?
Well, duh, there really was a drowning person in the first situation.
Now consider the "Jack Bauer" situation the torture apologists keep trotting out. Mr. Cheney had people tortured to try and prevent a nuke from going off in an American city. If you are willing to assume these proven liars are acting in good faith, and take this situation at face value, then the next question to ask is: Where the hell is this supposed bomb?
The hypothetical rowboat situation is really a trial defense, where the suspect is angling for Jury Nullification, admitting they stole the boat but asking for a not-guilty verdict due to the mitigating circumstances of saving a life. But if there's no drowning person, there is no defense, and that determination is for the prosecutor and the jury to make. It is absolutely not a decision to be made by the guy who stole the boat!