Torture and 24

Badger Blues has a long post about torture and its use in the TV show 24. As a matter of morality, I absolutely agree with Blues' perspective. I do not and cannot condone the use of torture, and its convoluted legal arguments to justify it. But as I agree, I also run into the same dilemna I always do. Is morality an absolute? Is immorality sometimes justified?

Consider the scenario presented by this season of 24. Islamic terrorists have gotten hold of 5 nuclear bombs and have brought them to Los Angeles. One has been set off and one has been defused (hope I'm not spoiling anything for anyone), leaving three out there ready to be used. Torturing one of the terrorist operatives is immoral, yes. But at the same time it may be the only way to get information vital to the search for the bombs.

Is it more moral to stand on the high ground knowing that it may allow the bombs to go off, or is it more moral to do everything in your power to get the information, even it if means torturing the person? I understand that's the kind of question administration supporters use to justify torturing anyone and everyone, which is typically a contrived and bogus argument. It is the immediacy of the threat posed in the 24 scenario that makes this different. This is not torture for the sake of a fishing expedition to find some information the victim may or may not have. This is torture for the sake of getting information the victim must have in order to avert a known, imminent catastrophe.

Put it another way. Let's say Atta had been arrested on 9/10/2001 by an FBI who knew some planes would be hijacked the following day but didn't know the flight numbers or the identity of the hijackers. In that circumstance, would it have been wrong to torture Atta to give up that information in a desperate attempt to avert 9/11?