Now this I can agree with you on. Quite frankly no matter which side they are "on", it's good to hear a foreign opinion for sure.
But on another note, I do disagree that you are using the 200,000 killed in the Iraq war in this argument. I don't see why it is needed in the argument. Yes that many people and possibly many many more were killed (including civilians, women, and children), it happens. Part of war. Look at the death tolls of WWII. However I don't think it is entirely relevant because this argument is about the CIA and interrogation and the CIA is absolutely not solely responsible for that much loss of life in the Iraq campaign.
So since you brought up the 200,000, I'm going on a tangent, but think about the thousands of people Saddam tortured and killed before the Gulf War and after it (including innocent people who he claimed had helped the Americans in 90-91). And I think you can make a viable argument that the CIA was very helpful in bringing him to justice with or without Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Was bringing him to justice worth it?
Also Sam what you mentioned earlier about the comparisons is accurate, and you make a valid argument. I do believe the US has a lot to learn in the representing itself department.
Now on another note, I still want to bring up the point I made earlier that no one mentioned. The politicians who released this report were told that releasing this report would very likely result in backlash and attacks on Americans overseas and endanger many more American lives. However they still decided to release it. Personally I'm glad that we finally have clarity but at what cost? If there is an attack next week and it costs 500 American lives was it worth it? Also I would like to add that this report was made solely on the testimony from the Lawyers for the people that were detained, and no interviews were conducted with the CIA agents in charge of the camps and detainees. That's another talking point that needs to be addressed.