Reply #30: That's not true in the types of situations she's talking about.

[jobycom]

Torture doesn't work the way Bush is using it, as a fishing expedition to find out if someone knows anything or to force them to admit to something. What we are talking about here is whether it should be used in cases where you have a person that you are sure knows the details of a plan that you have some knowledge of. Say, for instance, your intelligence tells you there is a nuke under NYC, set to go off at 9 am, and you capture someone who helped plant it. In that case, you know enough to judge the information you receive, you know the person has the information you need. In that case, torture can work. "Beating it out of him," in other words.

Torture is never the right thing to do, but when there's a choice between two wrongs, you have to choose one of them. Let a million people die, or beat one person you know is trying to murder a million people in an attempt to save those people. Which would you choose? Show me a leader worthy of being president who wouldn't choose torture in that case. And I'm sure you are aware that such situations have happened before. Maybe not a million (though maybe), but at least hundreds to thousands of lives.

That's clearly all that Hillary was saying.