It's depressing to read yet another naive article that attempts to justify torture by invoking some imaginary scenario in which - magically, and in contradiction to all real-world evidence - actually works.

In real life, torture rarely if ever works. Abu Zubayda was waterboarded by CIA interrogators 8 3 times yet never divulged any information of value - indeed, he sent the CIA off on one wild goose chase after another by giving false information.

Thus torture can be justified neither on the grounds of imaginary scenarios nor by real-world results. It's a shame ordinary people don't bother to acquaint themselves with facts before writing articles on topics about which they know little or nothing.

To extend the folly inherent in the article to claim that presidents should legally be immune from prosecution for any acts committed during their term in office is to say that presidents are now kings. Which, if I remember correctly, was an outcome the founding fathers explicitly sought to avoid. Perhaps glancing at a history book might also be useful before penning an opinion piece.