To an AQ fighter, there is no such thing as recognized due process, not administered by Americans at any rate. The point I am trying to make is that there is little in common with the actions of police in a free society and any battlefield, anywhere. We do things in this country as a matter of course that people in other countries find barbaric, and our excuse is "due process". The real question is: well, so what? The right of rule passes to those with the ability to enforce said right... not by some nebulous intangible written on a piece of paper.
Do we throw people into prison? Yeah, we do, and we notionally agree with the methods that put people there and tacitly approve of what happens to them when they are there. My entire point is that there is nothing morally different between what we do to prisoners in this country and what we do to enemy combatants. In both cases, our actions fit the legal definitions of assault and battery. So, we are back to the ends and means argument. Do the ends justify the means? If "torture" was effective at it's stated purpose - gaining information - would it's use have some legitimacy? And further, how should we define "torture"? As wanton brutality that doesn't work? As unsavory methods that should be avoided, regardless of efficacy? As a political third rail?