Either I'm missing something or...

Under what moral theory worth the name can one not take it for granted that going out of your way tomaximizing increase the pain/disutility experienced by another human being is essentially the worst thing you can do? This is basically a premise of any deontological theory, while the utilitarian arguments on torture are ably summarized, but apparently often forgotten, in Belle's post here. Which is to say that almost everyone agrees that there are conceptual circumstances in which torturing leads to a better outcome than not torturing, there's no particular reason to think that those circumstances have ever obtained, and talking about those circumstances casts a veneer of acceptability over the morally depraved acts which have taken place