Is torture ever justified?

With torture, the end justifies the means

Question: Is torture ever justified?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, torture can be justified
Argument: With torture, the end justifies the means

In time poor situations that could harm the greater part of humanity, torture can be justified if it means saving the community.

The argument

Torture is acceptable if it can save the lives of fellow citizens in “ticking-bomb” scenarios. Whether it’s an issue of national security or the potential death of a kidnapped toddler, torture might be the only means of eliciting crucial information fast enough to rescue the people at risk. Although torture may not be legal in America, 63% of Americans believe that torturing suspected terrorists can be a justifiable way of extracting information from them. Information is sometimes more valuable than morals, so that justifies some tortures. If lives are at stake and if it’s for the good of the country, it would be best to put aside morals and sympathy.

Premises

[P1]In ticking-bomb scenarios, torture may be the only means of extracting information fast enough to save innocent lives. [P2] When lives and national security are at stake, the value of that information outweighs the moral cost of torture. [P3] A majority of Americans accept that torturing suspected terrorists can be a justifiable way to extract such information. [C] Therefore, torture can be justified when the ends — saving lives — outweigh the means.

Counter-arguments

Information extracted under torture is low quality, as there's no way to assess their veracity in time and the tortured can just make it up to prevent tortures from delivering pain. Torture can be used to induce the tortured to say anything the torturer wants them to say, even if it is false.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The ticking-bomb case stipulates everything that would have to be known in advance: that this person holds the information, that it is current, and that torture will extract it in time. None of these is knowable before the fact, which is why the scenario works as a thought experiment and has never described an actual case. [Rejecting P2] The trade-off assumes reliable information is obtainable. Torture is well documented to produce whatever the interrogator seems to want, since a person in pain has every incentive to say something and no way to be believed by telling the truth — so the benefit side of the calculation is largely illusory, while the cost is certain. [Rejecting P3] What a majority believes is not a reason a practice is justified. Public support is a fact about opinion, and the prohibition in law and treaty is not the kind of question polling answers. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also omits costs the premises never enter: interrogations sent down false leads, detainees later found innocent, reciprocal treatment of one's own personnel, and the disappearance of an absolute prohibition once any exception is admitted.