The exception

I know it changes nothing, to doubt the conclusions of the 9/11 report is and will remain apostasy, and deservedly receives banishment from the temple of 'serious thinkers', but Newsweek does point out that most of the narrative of the planning was the result of torture. Usually, evidence obtained by torture is thought not to be reliable, this case must be the exception that proves the rule.

I'm sure the commission was told that in this case, in order to stop the pain the tortured told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's true that the commission did want to question the ringleaders directly, but when told no, they allowed the CIA to torture question for them.

The report also wisely failed to disclose that the facts were obtained through torture:

The commission's report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had "no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and statements of others."

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

How would the public know that this was the exception that proved the rule?
(h/t Invictus)