Maybe so.
But that means the Geneva conventions were a waste of time, doesn´t it?
If torture is an accepted fact, and practiced by every country, then there is no single nation with moral grounds to accuse others!
If everybody does it, then we can´t point finger to others because we are guilty of the same practice, right?
So, does that mean Saddam had the "right" to torture his enemies? Does this mean Saddam had a reasonable justification to conduct his torture sessions?
There aren´t diferent kinds of torture. There isn´t a "good" kind of torture, versus a "bad" kind of torture. There is no ambiguity in the act of torturing. It´s simple, clear cutted.
Just because torture is widespread and exists everywhere, it doesnýt mean we should stop trying to get it banned from our reality. It would be like excusing crime! Crime exists everywhere aswell, so, should we just forget about it and let it run its course unchecked?
Torture is a social deviation, and it no longer has a place in a civilized society. If it exists still, it means we as an advanced society have to try even harder to get rid of it.
As someone once said, "All that needs done for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing". Or something in those lines...

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.