Tony asked some very good questions on the previous post. I started writing my response in the comments and decided to make it a post. :)
People may not believe this, but I wanted to believe that Bush was competent and moral as President. I want to believe him even now when he tells me that the US doesn't torture. His signing statement following the torture ban make me doubt him. Or when his counsel (One Al Gonzales) redefines torture so that it only applies when the techniques cause "organ failure" or death. I am not sure how to believe him when he says we don't torture. To a certain degree, it seems like a sick parotting of the Clinton "meaning of is" joke, where people can be fake buried, waterboarded, or even denied medical care for open wounds, but as long as they don't die or have organ failure, it isn't "torture."
And for those who want to justify it in some ends justifying means way, there are problems even with that. And huge problems. This long piece from Newsweek (little old now) details some of them. One of the early high value targets from Afghanistan was tortured by Egypt (sometimes we outsource our torture to others--calling it "rendering") he told tales about Al Qaeda training in Iraq on the use of chemical and biological weapons. Except it turns out that was wrong.
I suggested to a Baptist friend of mine that if Christian values didn't oppose torture, then there are no Christian values.