I am, perhaps, not in the proper state of mind to be replying to this thread, and I am aware that this is the case, so I would like to apologize in advance for any rudeness.
Therumancer, I respect the fact that you can state your opinions so plainly, I really do. That said, I cannot help but become irritated when someone represents their opinions as fact, laying only a thin veil of modesty over their statements to avoid seeming full of themselves. From what I can see, such seems to be the case here; you only referred to your opinions as such at the beginning and end of your post, and they are portrayed in a highbrow manner which seems to imply that any conflicting opinions are the result of complete ignorance of the subject matter. Because of this, I feel it is necessary to offer a detailed, informed and contradictory post to introduce some semblance of balance to this thread.
I'll be responding to each of your points individually, but to save time, I will attempt to be relatively concise. The point I most strongly wish to debate is, conveniently, the first; you state that "Torture, the act of intentionally inflicting pain on another person to coerce them to do something is neither inherantly good or bad. Like any other tool it all comes down to how it is employed and why." First, I would like to point out that torture is an action, while anything that can accurately be described as a tool is an object -i.e., to torture is to perform the act of torturing someone while, say, a gun is an object. The act of intentionally inflicting pain on someone, regardless of the reason, is inherently bad, which is why most sane people are hesitant to resort to such methods themselves. That said, there are situations in which there is no 'right choice', and you are forced to put your morals aside for a while for 'the greater good'. It takes either a person of great resolve, a disgustingly gullible person, or a person who had no morals to begin with to make such a choice. In that sort of situation, torture is still wrong, but the results may be preferable over those of other options.
The "classic example" you describe in your second paragraph is actually entirely accurate with regards to the process. That is, a person is subjected to horrible pain and/or terror, and provides information (hopefully the information you're looking for) in the hopes that the pain will stop, at which point the torture theoretically ends. In wartime, however, people learn to stop thinking of the opposition as people, and think of them only as 'the enemy', which makes the decision to commit cruel and inhumane acts that much easier, so the torture almost inevitably continues. This mindset is necessary, unfortunately, because if soldiers thought about the opposition as people on the battlefield, most would have a much harder time bringing themselves to kill them. The 'wicked authority figure torturing an innocent man' description from your example seems a tad ostentatious, however.
Somewhat surprisingly, your next few points are relatively sensible, though the opinions you portray as the only alternatives are just as absurd as I've come to expect. I say that your points are only relatively sensible because of this, and because you continue to suggest that under the right circumstances, torture is just as acceptable as going to the grocer. (I apologize if absurd exaggerations are intended to be exclusively your domain, but I really couldn't resist.) I feel it is worthy of note that only very seldom do you know what the consequences will be should you not torture someone, while the consequences if you do are obvious; you will have tortured someone who may or may not know something useful to you, and if their information is useful, it could save and/or end any number of lives.
Now, I must apologize, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say in the next couple points; all I'm really seeing are a mess of run on sentences and something about kidnapping rings and lives being at stake, but I'll try to give a decent response. First, as far as I can tell, you disregard the possibility of people dying if a "terrorist" (gods, do I love the irony of the label) is tortured. You also, once again, try to claim that if most people would resort to torture under certain circumstances, or if torturing someone ends up saving lives, it must be/have been perfectly alright. The fact of the matter is, we do not know what will happen as a result of torturing someone, besides the fact that we'll have tortured them, beforehand. That, once again, is why it should be difficult to make that decision: you could be torturing someone for no reason. The whole idea of "the end justifying the means" is just a pathetic attempt to convince yourself that there's nothing to feel guilty about if the information uncovered saves someone's life.
Finally, in situations where someone would resort to torture, they do almost inevitably kill the subject, unless there is outside intervention, in which case the person will still spend the rest of their existence in a hole with very few exceptions. Second, you're starting to wander into very strange territory where torture is considered a service or kindness as the result of some strange sort of logic that I have to admit I can't really comprehend. I suppose, as far as that goes, that if the people being subjected to that sort of treatment shared those beliefs, then that's their prerogative, though I can't really imagine that the people performing those... rites? rituals? ...wouldn't feel some amount of guilt, except for (going back to what I said earlier) people with very strong faith, a.k.a. very gullible people. Though I would once again like to point out that people's minds (most people's minds anyway) aren't so simple that they can only think either that it's perfectly alright to torture people or that having coffee with a person they know has someone tied to the bottom of a bus is a good idea. Also, torturing convicts would be a useless endeavor (and, as you say, easily abused), especially considering the fact that "convicted" is not always synonymous with "guilty". Since I'm getting tired of typing, I'll end with this: If you're a bus driver and you call in sick, and the guy intended to cover for you drives off a cliff and kills 30 people, that's not your fault. If you torture local drug dealers or whatever on the off chance he's a customer, that is your fault. The same principle applies. And you don't know that a person knows something. Ever. You only know that they could know something or are in a position to know something. It would be perfectly reasonable to feel guilty if 50 people die and you didn't get information that could have saved them, but it would be unreasonable to claim that it's your fault for not torturing someone for, as far as you would have realistically known at the time, no reason. The issue here seems to be, and pardon me if I'm overstepping my bounds, that either your ethics professor or you (the latter seems more likely) have confused ethics and statistics. (It's actually rather disturbing how your arguments, or rather, argument places so much emphasis on numbers, and on assuming that everyone magically knows the end result of every action they take.) In fact, the assumptions and the way your scenarios are described sound almost exactly like something out of a textbook. That is to say, they assume there is one answer, that answer is right, and it is right because the author of the book says so, etc. That said, this "morality by the numbers" system you refer to seems reasonable enough as a pocket guide for sociopaths* that have an interest in being "good", so long as I assume that the disgusting over-generalization, over-valuing of outside opinion and claims that whatever choice is the least harmful to others is "right" are all gross misinterpretations of the original idea on the part of either you or the author of your textbook.
I'm going to stop here, (finally) partly because my hands hurt, but mostly because I've realized that my post was starting to get a bit hostile towards the end.
*This is not intended as a personal attack. I'm referring to the fact (I would assume) that such a simplified 'guide' on what appears morally acceptable would be useful for someone who is unable to understand less concrete concepts such as guilt and empathy, has an inability to distinguish right from wrong, etc. It isn't perfect though, but really, nothing is.
