That's pretty obvious right? Not to some torture opponents. Many people arguing against torture don't seem to understand that who gets tortured actually matters. They don't appear to make any distinction between a known leader of Al Qaeda, and an innocent child. Think I'm exaggerating? Steve Chapman has a post up at Reason's Hit & Run called, Torturing the Truth that illustrates this amazing lack of logical reasoning. Here's Chapman,
The problem with using "it worked" as an argument is that it justifies too much. By that rationale, we can justify subjecting enemy captives to every form of torture ever devised. We can even justify torturing and killing their spouses, siblings, parents, and children, right in front of them. [emphasis mine]
That last sentence makes sense only if you think terrorists are morally equivalent to innocents, otherwise it is completely illogical. It's much like saying that since we think putting criminals in prison works to deter crime, we can therefore justify imprisoning their entire families too.
Although you might not know it from reading the often hysterical polemics of torture opponents, there are actually many good, logical arguments against torture. Pretending that terrorists and innocents are somehow morally equivalent isn't one of them.