If you meant that the GOs not getting more than a rushed retirement was a miscarriage of justice, we can agree but your point is then fallacious because, as I said and you should know, that doesn't happen in the US. It should but it generally does not and that is historical fact. You and I are not going to change that so you're living in a dream world on that score.
The system did not work in the critical phase of meting out justice to the responsible. This only encourages further errors in the future. You regard this as a fundamental flaw(?) in the system, I regard it as a breakdown.

, in that it punishes the misdeeds of the lower but allows the higher ranks to pass on to well-funded retirements? I guess you are just more cynical than I.

Your last paragraph is essentially correct though your "Hollywood tough guy" comment is both telling and incorrect. It is also irrelevant.
What is telling, incorrect, and irrelevant about it? Please explain.

We can agree on what should not have happened, however we all have to live with what did and does happen -- mistakes are made in wars. Many have been made in this one, the whole interrogation effort is just one of them. Like many of the other mistakes, that one was rectified. You can disagree that the system worked but you'd be wrong.
The system appears to have resolved the issue as far as military detentions go, but although it failed to properly allocate justice to the guilty. Yet continued justifications for waterboarding by civilian intelligence agencies seems to indicate that the system certainly has not fully resolved its interrogation issues across the government as a whole.

It's also easy to take the moral high ground in hindsight and sitting here in CONUS, isn't it?
Sure. I've never been the man in the arena tasked with getting intel out of a detainee. Then again, I'm sure every torturer who ever put hands on an American POW would say the same thing.