In so many words, if only one historical narrative is to have validity (as should be the case with torture and "torture is effective"), then the alternate narrative (pitched by Bushco and their fellow-travelers) has to be destroyed.  The most efficacious way of doing that is proving, in open court, that what the pro-torture folks have said are ... lies.

No reasonable person questions today that, in fact, Scooter Libby was and remains a liar.  He was proven to be one.  And his claims are no longer respectable or even tenable.

Given Obama's cowardice, the discussion about torture will continue into the foreseeable future and it will remain both respectable and within the bounds of reason for people to argue that torture is, in fact, effective.

Without more transparency, the value of the C.I.A.'s interrogation and detention program is impossible to evaluate. Setting aside the moral, ethical, and legal issues, even supporters, such as John Brennan, acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces is unreliable. As he put it, "All these methods produced useful information, but there was also a lot that was bogus." When pressed, one former top agency official estimated that "ninety per cent of the information was unreliable." Cables carrying Mohammed's interrogation transcripts back to Washington reportedly were prefaced with the warning that "the detainee has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead." Mohammed, like virtually all the top Al Qaeda prisoners held by the C.I.A., has claimed that, while under coercion, he lied to please his captors.

I had a feeling, when others were claiming that Obama's initial statement said nothing about giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to those who wrote the memos or those who developed the policy, that he wasn't going to do the right thing.  That he was going to approach this as being strictly differences of policy, and not as potentially criminal acts.  But that's because he doesn't confront, he conciliates.  

in a month.

"Your office [CIA] has informed us that the CIA believes that "the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qa'ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11, September 2001."  . . . . .  In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.  . . . .  Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, "Soon, you will know."  We understand that the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah, and others, by contrast, has yielded critical information.  . . . .  And, indeed, we understand that since the use of enhanced techniques, "KSM and Abu Zubaydah have been pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of terrorists."

pp. 8 and 9 from 2005 Bradbury. Multiple citations were omitted.

or if your interest is in intimidation/complaince...

Obviously, most soldiers won't give up their comrades, especially if they're already a prisoner at a POW camp.  But unfortunately, on the battlefield, torture works.  

The problem is that terrorists being waterboarded are already trained and hardened.  They are prepared to and sometimes even eager to die, and may or may not have useful information.  If one person gives a list of five people involved in their cell, and another gives a matching list, it's likely to be deemed good information.  But wouldn't today's Jihadists be prepared with fake information?