As David Waldman observes, Republicans like John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales believe Torture is essential to "protecting" America. As Gonzales said about the techniques described in the Torture Memos,

They may be necessary in the future. And by disclosing it, means you take them off the table and they can never be used again.

And if Republicans return to power, they will once again bend or break laws so they can Torture again:

the election of Barack Obama alone has not changed torture's legal or constitutional status in this country, and it is at best a temporary respite only from what has admittedly become a staple of the Republican theory of governance. It's not just that torture has become an acceptable tool to Republicans. It's that it is now a tenet of Republican political philosophy that illegal and unconstitutional practices can be sterilized by order of the President.

Is there any way to pass iron-clad laws against Torture? Only if we fully restore the Rule Of Law:

I find myself returning to this one again and again. Whether or not torture is your issue. Or wiretapping. Or indefinite detention. Or signing statements. Or anything, really -- environment, global warming, abortion, health care, taxes, terrorism, the war. No matter what your issue is, at heart, you're dependent on a continuing and consistent respect for the law. Because without it, none of your work on politics and policy is worth anything the moment the White House falls to someone who's not you. You can pass all the environmental laws you like, but if it's accepted as a legitimate tenet of Republican governing philosophy that all of those laws can be safely ignored or otherwise set aside, you'll have gained nothing from your work with a friendly Congress and administration.

And if you can set aside all statutory and constitutional law on something like torture, I'm unsure what barriers you think remain in the way of doing the same on any other issue.