I don't object to tough interrogation. These guys, it was said, are our enemies. As far as observing the Geneva conventions, well.. If the other guy doesn't play by the rules, why should we? Moral high ground?
If a high value target has lots of knowledge that may save soldiers and citizens' lives, I say go for it. I don't buy the line that it's ineffective.

Take for instance KSM. Here's a guy who gave it up under "interrogation".
Vile piece of sh** he is!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/15/guantanamo.mohammed/index.html