The standard story seems to be the "ticking bomb." You know, "gotta torture somebody if there's a ticking bomb." Only that argument makes no sense at all.
If a bomb is ticking, then the person being tortured has every incentive to make stuff up and send the authorities on a wild goose chase until the bomb explodes. The only way to give the suspect an incentive to tell the truth is to credibly promise to torture him or her if the bomb actually explodes.
Got that? You need to promise to torture after the crisis has passed, when no possible information can be gained, solely as retribution. Otherwise the suspect will lie like there's no tomorrow.
No democratic society can promise that and retain a veneer of legality or justice.
In other words, the "ticking time bomb" argument is worse than specious. It's pernicious.