NoBoxes

Seriously, there are legitimate tactical uses for secret prisons when they are used as an exception to the rule rather than as the rule. For example, say we capture a high value soft target and the enemy is unable to determine whether that person is dead or alive. We can toll the time limitations on the enemy's contingency plans for the loss of their operative. This may work to our advantage. Denying the enemy additional knowledge about the capture (e.g. who effected the capture, which government detains the captured, and where that person is detained) may help keep the enemy from identifying and taking hostages whom they believe would be useful in bartering for release of their operative. The same applies to other retaliatory measures. There are other open source examples for the legitimate use of secret prisons if you do the research; however, it would be inappropriate for me to go any further.

The current application for secret prisons likely stems from changes in the nature of warfare which essentially renders the conventions we've entered into moot. How many people actually believe that, when push comes to shove, those conventions will be observed by anyone including the signatories? Do we really have anything significant to loose (i.e. how many American lives is your self respect worth)? Certainly, the current Administration has opted for the lowest common denominator. This has negatively impacted our worldwide credibility; but, that damage has been weighed against the potential damage resulting from not availing ourselves of strategic opportunities. Until now, civilian employees of our government have operated in a gray area. The "Laws of Land Warfare" were written for combatants (who are well defined). Non-combatants (i.e. spies, e.g. CIA) are not protected by those conventions. If they are not protected, what do they have to lose by not abiding by those conventions? That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is to have everyone abide by the conventions that we've entered into. All military personnel are taught [mandatory training] that those conventions have the same legal affect, wherever they are, as Amendments to the Constitution. That's why military personnel can be prosecuted for violating those conventions even if they are ordered to do so. For the Armed Forces, it's pretty much cut and dry. Now, Congress has defined the responsibilities of all government service organizations.

Secret prisons have applications beyond engaging in torture. In the case of torture that shocks the conscience, I concur with tw's statement:

"VIOLENCE, THE LAST REFUGE OF THE UNINTELLIGENT."