The democrat and republican sides disagree on basic facts, such as whether torture worked in extracting information, That is not a 'basic fact' that any of

The democrat and republican sides disagree on basic facts, such as whether torture worked in extracting information, That is not a 'basic fact' that any of the people involved in the report is qualified to determine from the records. Whether torture 'works' is highly subjective. Why was certain information given? How correct was the information? How relevant was the information to preventing (further) criminal activity? And even if you could assess the upside, there is still the downside to compare to it. Do you want to live in a country where hundreds of people may be detained for years without trial, without recourse, while being tortured, because one of them may at some point give up some information that may prevent some future criminal activity? You say Torturing one known criminal to extract information that could save dozens (or hundreds) of innocents is unsavory to say the least, but it's better than the alternative. but that's a false dichotomy. In actual fact you would have to torture many criminals to extract information that saves lives. And the torturing, and having the ability to torture, has a cost. How do you quantify that cost and judge it less than the lives saved? Because if you allow torture, police will use it on every criminal. If you ever get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you will get tortured, because you may know something about other people that were there. And they won't believe you if you say you don't know them. And it could take a while to sort that out.