Let's start, since he's approaching a re-election campaign, Senator Pat Toomey.
We visited this issue in 2010 where this happened:
However, on the hot-button issue of torture now under debate in Washington, Toomey twice refused to reveal his position on the interrogation method used on suspected terrorists which simulates drowning.Senator, please tell us, in light of the Senate report that found that:
"My understanding is that [waterboarding] revealed some very, very important information that saved a lot of American lives," Toomey said Monday during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon, where he was the guest speaker.
At numerous times through out the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, CIA personnel assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most "high-value," was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the Intelligence Community. CIA officers regularly called into question whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence. [Emphasis added]Do you still think that the torture revealed important information? And if so, what?
And if you still believe that the torture was valuable, how do you square that assessment with the fact that it's against the law? Is it not against the law simply because some say that it "saved lives" (even though the Senate report said it didn't)?
I think Pennsylvania voters are entitled to an answer to these questions.