I just don't get this. You're leaving the decision as to who is a terrorist who has information and who isn't to people who may or may not have the ability or wisdom or information to be able to make that decision. That means innocent people potentially being tortured. If we are a nation that does that, are we worth defending? Didn't the Founders consider the ideals expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to be universal? They were not nationalists, in that sense: they saw America as a city on a hill, but it was up there as a beacon, not as the seat of empire. If we're only fighting to defend a piece of land, and not an ideal, then we're no different from any other nation, and then there is certainly no justification for torture, and somebody has to figure out a way to get beacon burning again.
Same liberal argument made by those opposing the death penalty. By your logic, it is better that 1,000 terrorists be allowed to kill and maim than to torture 1 terrorist by mistake.
I'm not talking innocent people. I specifically said captured terrorists. If they have information about future attacks, then all necessary force should be used to obtain that information to prevent the attacks.
I refuse to buy into the moral relativism argument posited either. Totalitarian regimes and terrorists intentionally torture the innocent to further their objectives. Conversely, captured terrorists are not innocents. Even if they lack the information being sought, torturing them by mistake does not put the U.S. at the same level as those who torture the innocent on purpose.