CIA torturers acting in "good faith" and the more RELEVANT question: "faithful" to what and to whom?

The hearing:
"3:02 Holder will not prosecute people who acted in good faith on justice dept memos..."
"3:25 Culverson wants to know if CIAers who did not act in good faith might be prosecuted..."

etc.

This point of "acting in good faith" has absolutely NO bearing here. That is, the issue on the table is the torture of human beings, and, therefore, where does quote-unquote good faith even begin to enter the picture? That is specious argumentation. Said another way: let us be just a bit more precise (read: "honest"), and pose the RELEVANT question: "faithful" to what and to whom? The "I was only following orders" denial has been thoroughly discredited. And, as the prosecutor at Nuremburg--General Telford Taylor--declared, we had better not show hypocrisy after having condemned Nazis for their heinous acts if--or, when--crimes we've enacted are ever disclosed. As of this writing, those heinous acts have been disclosed.
If the term "acting in good faith" implies that the operative acted with the best of intentions--or, somehow, "meant well"--then this, too, strains credulity to its limits. That is, 1) the "end" or goal can not justify the "means," and, 2) every murderous tyrant since the dawn of time has laid claim to his own "good intentions." Said another way: 1) it is the "means" that are suspect, and, 2) the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
If a law enforcement agent or operative is in the act of siccing an attack dog on the genitals of detainee #479 at Guantanamo, the only way that we can begin to argue to the possibility of "good faith" is if we are in denial about the act in question. Full stop.