[ZeeJustin]

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one possible logical explanation for BT and CZ's line of choices.

You can argue that non-optimal rules should be followed for the sake of greater overall benefit in the longterm.

Torture is a good example. If we ever get Osama in custody, maybe torture would be the right choice to get maximum info. However, it is also the best choice for the US to take a stance against torture (obviously this is debatable). Personally, I think it's best to ban torture, while still occasionally doing it illegally in extremely pressing scenarios, but you could logically argue that the rule should often be followed even in cases where it's -ev, provided that +ev choices will be made far more often.

Afterall, BT is simply going by a set of guidelines that isn't always optimal. On the other hand, if he argued that it always was, then that's a horse of a different (illogical) color.