Even assuming torture would get the answer from this hypothetical terrorist (a dubious assumption — what would keep him from misdirecting them long enough to allow the bomb to go off?), there's no no case in which we can allow the government to abandon the Constitution if we want to keep the rights that set us apart and make us great. But your whole scenario smacks of an action movie rather than reality. If the FBI had a terrorist who knew firsthand where the bomb was, it would be likely that they'd also be able to determine enough to locate it using conventional, legal investigative techniques (say, by tracking his movements or associates, or simply searching his possessions).
Frankly, instead of griping about torture, the FBI should be using the means at its disposal (wiretaps, surveillance, etc.) to track down would-be martyrs before they carry out their plans. Then again, if recent history is any guide, that's not something the FBI is particularly good at.
What's your answer to post #262?
The FBI does not engage in warfare; would you concede that they cannot therefore engage in torture?Not as a punishment and not in normal circumstances. However, you need to really define torture. The hot lamp in one's face can be conceived as torture. The black eyes that many FBI agents and police officers have handed out in interrogation rooms could be conceived as torture. Where is the line drawn? The BoR only speaks to punishment.