It's not bogus to recognize that the SEALS were at far more risk than an already captured and detained prisoner. Your scenario of an unexpected attack is far less likely and so there is much less risk.
I'd acknowledge that a SEAL on a battlefield is at higher risk. But a CIA interrogator is likewise at some considerable risk. From both their prisoners, as well as others who would seek to kill them.
I have a friend who was a prison guard, who spoke to me about an incident where he was just walking a prisoner from one area to another of the prison two steps behind him, and the prisoner whirled around for no apparent reason and elbowed him in the jaw, breaking his jaw. Six years later, he still had middle-ear problems and several surgeries, long after he left his position.
I made no such statement about one being more valuable than the other, nor see that having anything to do with the torture debate.
I re-read your comment I responded to, and acknowledge that I read more into it than you actually said.
Independent of that, a CIA interrogator is as necessary to get information and save lives, as are Navy SEALs.
And as I said, the CIA agents are up on false charges, and are arguably also at risk for doing exactly as they were instructed to.
