I believe in the "Rule of Law" as a general concept necessary to a functioning society. I do not believe in it as a dogmatic application of The Law Über Alles, where the text of a law takes thoughtless precedence over the moral principle it was meant to establish.
You imply such a thing as prosecutorial discretion does not exist. It does and always has.
When one breaks a law to bring light to greater wrongdoings, the only just thing to do is pardon the original transgression.
So what you're saying is, you'd pardon someone who broke a law against torture and saved lives by so doing. After all, the torturer "[broke] a law to bring light to greater wrongdoings", and "the only just thing to do is pardon the original transgression."
(If you reply at all, you will of course weasel out of this with "torture never works and you're a horrible person besides", but I find it amusing enough, to point out that your argument easily justifies torture, that I'll do so despite the near certainty you'll dodge the point instead of considering it.)
Let's say we have a convicted murderer that committed the act when they were very young, he admitted to it with remorse, the victim's family has no vengeance in their hearts, and he spent 50 years in prison for the crime. Just because the governor issues a pardon to let the old man out to die in peace with family doesn't mean the governor is justifying the original crime.
I find it amusing enough, to point out that your argument easily justifies torture
The moral standard behind the various "torture is not allowed" laws and proclamations is twofold:
1) Destroying people is bad mmkay? I think we can all agree on that.
2) It recognizes that any intelligence needs can be met by forms of interrogation that don't use such tactics.
And a not-at-all-morally-related but still valid reason is:
3) Using it carries very bad consequences for the perpetrators, PR, public support, support from allies, giving people who don't like you a reason to attack you.
So no, my argument justifies no such thing.
If you reply at all, you will of course weasel out of this by willfully twisting my words again to fit whatever you think they meant instead of what I actually wrote.
You imply such a thing as prosecutorial discretion does not exist. It does and always has.
When one breaks a law to bring light to greater wrongdoings, the only just thing to do is pardon the original transgression.