Torture should be legal

Good luck!1. Morality in torture. I am for torture, because I am against terrorism. This isn't to say that an anti-torture individual is pro terrorism, but I approve of torture, because it can help deter terrorist activity greatly. How, you may ask? Let's say we capture a known terrorist leader, and we know he has info that is detrimental to Our Homeland Security. We have good reason to believe that a terrorist attack may take place on US soil, and we now have a choice. He certainly isn't going to give the information up easily, the only way to extract this information is through torture. We can do that, or we can allow the strong possibility of the attack to go undressed. Thousands of lives may be harmed because of this irresponsible decision. I for one would choose torture. Where's the harm? He's a human being, you may argue. He is deserving of human rights, and torture is a violation of his human rights. What about those who would be killed and injured in the terrorist attacks? Aren't their human rights being violated? Of course they are! I am not at all sympathetic to terrorist leaders who kill and injure innocent civilians every day, and who want to cripple this nation for whatever reasons they see fit. If it comes down to either, 1-Torturing a known mass murdering terrorist and saving the lives of even a few people, perhaps even thousands, or 2-Finding "other ways" to stop this terrorist attack from happening and treating this murdering scum with respect, I'd choose the former without hesitation, every time. I don't see how it is immoral to torture a terrorist, and consequently, save lives. 2. Does torture work? Another argument against terrorism is, does it really work? Is it worth damaging someone's life for a possible solution? Unfortunately, due to the classified information of counter terrorism, it is unsure on how torture was used, and the outcome of such use, but let's look at it this way. So we have no proof that it does or doesn't work. However, again given the hypothetical situation where a known terrorist leader is captured, and intelligence strongly suggests a terrorist attack on US soil will take place, and this terrorist knows the details of said attack, what have we to lose by torturing him? He is a terrorist, who will not be simply released after we're through with him. He will have a court martial, and eventual execution (most likely) so why shouldn't we extract the information from him? It certainly wouldn't hurt, in my opinion. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by torturing him. Another argument is that, under duress, a suspect will tell you anything you want to hear. Isn't that a good thing? If a bomb is believed to be going off, somewhere in Times Square, NY, wouldn't we want to know where it is? If he's going to tell me what I want to know, I'll take that as a good thing. If you make it known to the terrorist that the torture will not stop until the bomb is found, then logic suggests he will tell you, in order to end the agony. Most terrorists aren't that strong willed, they are human after all. Again, I see no reason not to use torture in this situation, where thousands of lives are at risk. It sure as hell wouldn't hurt, would it? Conclusion. I see no reason why, in the extreme circumstances of possible terrorist attacks, torture shouldn't be condoned. If the suspect being tortured has information regarding a potential attack, or perhaps the locations of weapons or other wanted terrorists, how can torture not be justified? I value the lives of innocent Americans highly above the scum terrorists that walk the earth today, and believe anything and everything should be used to prevent attacks on innocent Americans, even if it mean brutally torturing a terrorist.