[arglebarnacle]

>...if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information

Right, he wouldn't use it because he doesn't believe it's effective. The GP is suggesting that if it were effective and legal, do you really believe he would refrain from doing it on moral grounds? It's the prerogative of the FBI to pursue cases using essentially all effective legal means, and it's no surprise to hear they are lobbying for more tools to become legal.

[1457389]

No. Like I said, he literally stated word for word that torture is both morally wrong in his eyes and ineffective, not to mention illegal.

Paraphrasing here but I think his definition was along the lines of "anything that purposefully causes physical harm or injury to a person", and when asked whether bad prison food counts, he said that in his eyes for his team that is not something he would condone. This was a pretty straightforward response; the man at least talks the good talk on torture.

[Programmatic]

Not to take away from his talking the good talk, but I don't think that his moral position is very meaningful given that it is demonstrably ineffective. If it was demonstrably effective and he said it was immoral, those words would carry much more weight. But he has little to lose by saying that it's morally wrong when it doesn't work. The illegality is also moot when discussing legalization.