The argument on the side of "enhanced interrogation" techniques tends
to come down to the practical: we need them because they work (i.e., they obtain information that could not be obtained in a usable time frame by other methods, which prevents attacks).  If the
claim is true, that would be a legitimate argument ().  There are a number of ways to decided whether an interrogation method, whether enhanced or not, is valid and productive.  The Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) method is not one of them.  His method?  Noting that there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since 11 September, 2009.  While true, it does not establish a causative relationship between interrogation methods and prevention of terrorist attacks.

This is exactly the same reasoning used in the development of superstitions.  I was wearing boxers nor briefs when I got my Western blot to work.  Therefore, I always wear boxers when doing Western blots.  Or, I wear pants and have never been struck by lightning.  Therefore, pants prevent lightning strikes. 

Even if you favor using water boarding and the like, don't use McConnell's argument.  It just makes you look silly.