CIA's policy
..before 9/11 was - torture not only strictly prohibited by operatives, but even association with it tangentially was grounds for termination (job-loss).

That is rather optimistic, it would be better to say that publicity of any connection with torture was grounds for termination. And in theory the rules still say no torture. Still, evidence suggests that somebody in the PNAC crowd is responsible for markedly lowering the regulations and enforcement of torture rules. It seems to have become a "don't ask, don't tell" situation where the lower level intelligence officers produced intelligence and nobody talked about how they got it.

Torture is not only morally reprehensible, it doesn't work.

Depends on how you are using it. If your goal is to extract information through fear of more torture, then no. But the goal in this case was to mentally disorient the victems and prepare them for interrogation sessions. Disorient them and make them willing to talk.

My understanding is that the CIA intelligence officers feel that if they can get you talking they can get information out of you, one way or another. But they need something to get you talking, and preferably in a state where you are not real coherent.

Jay