The argument about torture, or, as we euphemistically refer to it, "enhanced interrogation," rages on. On "Last Week Tonight," host John Oliver pointed out that the only official step that has been taken to outlaw or limit torture of enemy prisoners is an Executive Order, signed by Barack Obama, that admonishes interrogators to limit their actions to those listed in The Army Field Manual.

There are two basic principles that are in question: first, is torture in time of war justified, and second, does it work?

The arguments pro and con shake down predictably along political lines - conservatives are all for it, while liberals reject torture out of hand.

I think that most people are missing the point.  Consider this: had the US military and intelligence services wanted to keep quiet the interrogations/torture of terrorists or enemy combatants, couldn't secrecy have been easily accomplished?  We are talking about a relatively small number of men, held in foreign countries - how would any investigator or journalist have ever found out?

These agencies of our government let us know that they were torturing our enemies because they wanted us to know that they were torturing our enemies.

The point of the torture was never information; torture and suffering were the end itself.

The point was to let America feel like someone was being punished for 9/11.