[ With that justification what limits would you place on interrogators? Suppose torture isn't getting what they need. That the captive will not break. Should you bring in the captive's compatriots who don't know what the interrogators need to know and torture them until the captive breaks? What if that doesn't work should you bring in the captive's spouse, children? Remember we're desperate for this information. What limits would you place upon the methods used in torturing someone for actionable intellegence? ]

yes, why not? The end justifies the means.If this is the only way how to save other people, it's not a big problem.

[ So, torture innocents to protect innocent lives? No irony there. ]

yes

ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it

[ So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent? ]

what are you talking about? I value the western civilisation more than f.e. somalian or arabic. Look, I'm not one of those people who believe all cultures are equal, heck they don't even share same beliefs or moral standards. In order to preserve the western civilisation(even though it's very flawed) I would sacrifice another. You can call me racist, I don't care.

[ my whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral. ]

if it would be a waste of time, people wouldn't use it in the first place