I am curious though.
Do folks support this solely because they don't think that what is being done is torture? Or because they don't care if "terrorists" get tortured?
I concur with Balog's questions, but would add a couple.
Do you support this because you don't think it's torture?
Do you support this because you think the people being tortured or "enhanced interrogated" are terrorists?
Do you support this because you think torture or "enhanced interrogation" provides critical intelligence information?
I'm actually curious for the answers. In the case of scout26's answer, it was wrong, but it was an answer. I do respect him for giving a candid answer. I suspect he really believed that it was torture (though he did not use the term), but the CIA was torturing actual terrorists and it produced useful information. This is about approximately 98% incorrect.
I can do a more thorough approximation from open sources of how incorrect it is if scout26 wants. Look up the number of official detainees, look up the number released. "Useful information" will be harder to gauge from open sources, but I'll try my best to find a good metric if it exists. I know from not open sources that is low. Mainly because you tend to have 1 Omar the Terrorist, 9 Johnie Jihadi Grunts and 10-40x Billy the Illiterate Goatherder. Omar the Terrorist will often try to pretend to be Billy the Illiterate Goatherders if possible, Johnie Jihadi Grunt (follows orders but zero strategic knowledge, foot soldier at best) if not. So, if you torture them all, you have between 1-5% chance of getting actual information. Statistically, you'll be torturing the equivalent of Billy the Illiterate Goatherder, who could only possibly give you vital strategic intelligence on his goats.
Once in a great moon, you'll get a confirmed Omar such as KSM. By now, he's being tortured for entertainment value, or just incompetence. The amount of useful intel he'd possess within 48 hours of the press conference announcing we snagged KSM is trivial. Historical information would be very useful, but it's not exactly "time sensitive" ticking timebomb 24-style information. The CIA and Bush/Obama administrations did their best to insinuate that the 24-style torture was the routine rather than an absolute statistical anomaly.
I guess it's not quite as cool to admit you're mostly torturing either footsoldiers who tend to know less about their movement than a person that watches CNN regularly or random bystanders snagged for mistaken identity or fraudulent purposes (ie for the bounty, revenge, etc).