Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

I believe as Hobbes did that human nature is evil with that I have come to the conclusion that in our nature is the lust to cause pain on others. Some people cause pain in different ways emotionally, physically, economically, etc. What torture allows is for the torturer to release their true inner self and essentially get the rush of being encompassed with their natural self. Considering we're talking about terrorists and the appropriate use of force against them, I believe it is reasonable to assume the organization that would be trying to combat these terrorists would be a government. With that I ask, what is a given governments tool(s) to combat terrorism? I argue that a governments tool(s) is their military and intelligence services, especially in the United States case being that they do not openly negotiate with terrorist groups and have set a precedent of not doing so, that rules out diplomatic avenues. Now given that our choices are between military force or intelligence services I now ask, what type of people are prone to volunteer for organizations such as the military, CIA, or the DIA? I argue that it is people more inclined to enjoy violence or at the very least not be inclined to be apprehensive towards it. Now truly if a government is going to engage in a "War on Terror" the given government would by essence be encouraging the respective recruits of the war to kill and maim terrorists. I don't mean to sound crass but I am absolutely certain a bomb or a bullet is going to cause significant amount of pain and trauma in some cases much worse than the pain that would be endured in a typical torture session. I point to the definition that Con provided on torture and the part about punishment I believe essential to my argument. The personnel that are engaging in this so called war have seen their friends and countless civilians harmed and killed by terrorists. Remember as I stated before I believe human nature to be evil and lustful to cause pain,therefore I find torture to be the correct punishment for terrorists and I also find it to be a worthy retribution to the personnel that are affected the most and have lost the most from the terrorists let alone it allows the personnel that are more inclined to violence to release their rage, immorality, and also to release their self deprecation (albeit for a short intense moment in time) on a person I would deem to not be worthy of human/natural rights. The last point I would like to make (I will try not to make this a rebuttal but will revisit it in future rounds) is if the Innocence Project is to be believed that "up to two thirds" of people tortured lie to stop the torturing, what is a governments obligations to protect it's citizens and interests from terrorists? I argue it is the complete obligation of a government to do everything in it's power to try and mitigate civilian harm and casualties but if the government has a suspected terrorists and has a 33% of extracting correct intelligence that could save hundreds if not thousands of lives or lead to the capture or killing of other terrorists it is not only the correct but brutal decision it is also the moral decision because frankly terrorists don't deserve to be protected over civilians or personnel working for a given government. I will not get into the Geneva Convention in this round as it would be unfair to rebut considering I will have the last word in this debate.