I find it interesting that you focus on the one issue that is relatively a minor issue with most people and say that I should care intensely about whether subjecting foreign terrorists to interrogation techniques that some people feel is torture. And if I don't really place that much emphasis on it, I somehow don't "care" about the US. Laughable.
Let me put in this perspective, and perhaps, maybe you'll get it (or maybe not, since your perspective is extremely naive.)
When we talk about torture and you quote Russians, Chinese, Cuban, Taliban, etc.. you are trying to parallel what the US is to these countries.
First off, we're not Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan, etc. We don't round up citizens to torture them and then later kill them in a sham. Our system of justice is so much more predicated on doing human rights and I think that anyone who would suggest we abandon it for the styles of these other countries should be shot.
Secondly, most US citizens would probably tell you that it would be wrong for the US to torture anyone, but asking them if known terrorists were captured and we needed to extract information out of them to prevent innocent people from dying, (such as 9/11) then I think you'd get a completely different response. While some of the more "moral purists" may say differently, you'd find real quick that a lot of people would say "I don't care, just do whatever to get him/her to talk."
You need to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we round up hundreds of "suspected" terrorists and subject them to torture. You don't have too. Many would give intelligence information that might prove valuable. However, those in critical positions of terrorist networks are trained to deceive and to use anti-interrogation techniques. They can't just be asked "OK, what do you know?" and for them to just tell you. And if they are in the middle of planning a big event that would strike at the US or other interests around the world that would cause death and destruction to innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace, then I'm not so sure that people are going to give a rats ass what happens to terrorists. You know, the terrorists? The ones that don't give a rats ass about you and would just as soon scream Allah Akuhbar while sawing into larynx trying to separate your head from your body?
You see, I get the idea that we shouldn't torture for the sake of torture. I certainly don't want the US to be known as a country that condones torture. It is wrong to do so. However, there may be circumstances that require techniques that some might think is torture in order to prevent them from succeeding and hurting a school, a business district, or a mosque/church/synagogue.
As I said, you're being extremely naive in your views about torture and trying to make us all "care" if we do or not. You seem to be too purist and not enough rational. National Security, public safety, etc must all be weighed to determine a course of action and create a policy that balances it out.
I'll just remind you of a couple little things. While you're busy trying to rid the world of terrorists, two US soldiers who were killed in Iraq were captured by Al Quaida. It was said by a member of the group that was captured that had participated in the kidnapping, that Al Quaida members tortured the men severely, asking about information of troop strength, headquarters locations, etc, and when they were finished, the soldiers, who should be guaranteed rights of the Geneva Convention, were then killed.
The same can be said for thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who lost family members under similar circumstances who are already reeling from the destruction and chaos following the US invasion. So if we capture a couple of high value targets that have information on impending attacks on innocents whether here or there, I'm not going to complain too much if they don't get enough sleep and we can prevent innocent people from dying.