I mean in the context of this discussion, obviously.
But why limit it to this discussion?
I mean, if we are going to give legal immunity to public officials who are not making life or death decisions, and we're going to give legal immunity to scumbag criminals in order to get indictments of more important people, why shouldn't we bite the bullet and give legal immunity to our security officials who are presented with the "do or die" situation of getting information from a terrorist to stop a big attack? Why should we require themselves to become eventual martyrs to the legal system because we won't extend immunity to them for doing something we think is NECESSARY.
Let's be clear: not giving immunity means that if I have in my possession a terrorist who has planted a nuclear bomb in New York, and I am not in New York and don't have anyone close to me in New York, you're asking me to risk life in prison or even the death penalty in order to extract information from him through torture, but you're NOT willing to bend the legal system to grant me the protection from the destruction of my life by the legal system I'm trying to protect?
The "right" thing to do in such a circumstance?
Obey the law.
New York burns and 11 million people die.
Don't want that result? Then change the law.
If I've taken an oath to the law and the Constitution, then I'm going to follow the law and the Constitution unless there is some compelling PERSONAL reason for which I am willing to become a death-row bound felon. The Constitution and the law are clear as a bell: no torture.
So, if I decide to be a criminal and torture, it would only be because of a personal stake in the matter.
No personal stake, I obey the law, and I cannot be prosecuted.
Don't like that result? Then protect me and I'll protect you.