In that scenario, you already have 1) clear proof of guilt on the part of the terrorist and 2) clear proof of an immediate threat which can clearly be prevented through the obtaining of information from the terrorist. In such clear circumstances, one can argue that it is moral to torture the terrorist if (and only if)it is necessary to obtain the information in time to save as many lives as possible. However, it cannot be argued that one can torture a suspected terrorist in order to hopefully gain information that may prevent possible threats, when it is believed that the information will probably not be gained through other methods.

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the role of the armed forces nowadays. The U.S. military is made up entirely of volunteers who were presumably informed as to what being in an army entailed prior to volunteering. This means that each and every one of them has agreed to risk their lives if it is deemed necessary for the interests of the American nation or people. They cannot be granted special permission to violate human rights, or the laws of the nation they have sworn to serve, to avoid the risk they voluntarily assumed.

Finally, it is not always as easy to remove an elected official from office as you make it out to be, Ireland. The task is made particularly hard when said officials have already been granted extraordinary powers over their own citizenry.