Torture, Right or Wrong?

The word interrogation can conjure many scenarios where getting critical information at any cost is the main objective.   Is torture as a means of obtaining information that would save lives going too far?   Torture is meant be cruel and demeaning and should only be allowed when there are no other options, and under certain conditions such as: innocent lives are in immediate danger, used on enemy combatants that do not fall under the Geneva Convention, or any enemy that breaks the protocols of the Geneva Convention.   Reasonably, these situations are the only way to justify torture as a tool to ascertain vital information that could prevent another 9/11 attack.
Is the life or quality of life of a criminal more important than that of an innocent citizen? Respectively no, this thought is supported in the day to day decisions made by law enforcement and rationalized as a means to use torture in order to save the life of an individual or many people.   An example that exemplifies the rationale “a wrongdoer takes a hostage and points a gun to the hostage's head, threatening to kill the hostage unless a certain (unreasonable) demand is met. In such a case it is not only permissible, but desirable for police to shoot (and kill) the wrongdoer if they get a "clear shot". This is especially true if it's known that the wrongdoer has a history of serious violence, and hence is more likely to carry out the threat.” (Bagaric 416)   In a   situation in which there are two aggressors, and one aggressor is captured, while the other has the hostage Bagaric says, “In the hostage scenario, it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save an innocent person. How can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing the aggressor in order to save a life in the second scenario? (Bagaric 416).   It is prohibited in the United States of America to torture an individual under any...