---

There are at least two things wrong with the premise to start with.

1) Any idiot can keep from revealing information under two hours of torture. They'd simply put up with it as long as possible, and then lie. They'd only have to do it two or three times to run out the clock. It can take weeks or even months to break people under torture, using psychological systems. Waterboarding them for an hour simply does not work in any way.

2) So, how would you like to be tortured? Remember, we're doing this outside of any sort of legal system, so there's no actual evidence that they are guilty of anything. Even if you put in legal controls, they explicitly couldn't work within the ticking-time bomb scenario.

But let's pretend 1) would only apply 90% of the time, so we might actually get some useful information, and 2) hasn't seemed to worry all the crazy people willing to throw away the rule of law.

So, let's pretend the premise is true, 100%. Let's think about it for a moment:

An FBI agent has someone in custody who, if tortured, would save 100 lives. That's the premise.

So, do we need a law legalizing this? Because otherwise it's assault.

The answer is: Um, no. Are you stupid?

---

As the right-wing in this country has apparently completely forgotten how a government of laws, not men, is supposed to work, it's perhaps time to refresh their memory:

When people violate the law, they are charged with a crime, and brought before a court. Remember, though, this is optional, so the DA wouldn't have to bring charges. So there's the first way out for the torturer.

Now, there is a right to self-defense in the law, and that right, while it is often laid out in the law, it is based on a common law premise that you can commit a crime to stop a greater crime, so even if self-defense laws don't exactly fit (And they usually would.), there's a fairly strong legal argument for him to 'escape justice' in the first place.

But wait, there's more. You see, legal cases aren't only decided by laws, they are decided by juries. Now, imagine the hero FBI agent that saved 100 people in front of a jury being charged with assault of the attempted murderer to get the information that saved the people.

Gee, I wonder how that case is going to turn out? (This is, incidentally, one of the reasons you should educate people about jury nullification.)

Even assuming that the unthinkable happened and he's found guilty, there's another escape-hatch for him...a pardon by the executive officer, either the governor or the president, depending if he was charged federally or locally.

Oh, but wait, there's even more. Let's say that guy hasn't stepped to his aid, and he's going to prison. Well, the legislative branch could pass a law giving him explicit immunity for any role he played in those events. Just like the 'you can torture' law, but afterwards, for a specific instance, and after careful consideration of the case, not just randomly letting people do it whenever.

---

So, basically, the 'ticking time bomb' argument is complete insanity, as that guy wouldn't be going to jail. The DA, the judge, the jury, the executive officer, and the legislature, and even the general public if they can put resolutions on the ballot and vote them into law, could free the guy. He, like anyone else in a life-or-death emergency, should just go ahead and break the law and let the public judge his actions later.

And as an added bonus, those options apply to anyone. Not just the CIA or whoever, if it's some local sheriff or even a random civilian that save the day, they're safe too.

Whereas granting someone immunity from criminal charges if they torture someone? Then no one can put him in jail if he abuses and randomly tortures people, because ex post facto laws are not allowed. So he's free to do whatever he wants. Like, as I said, torture you under the mistaken (Or the 'mistaken', nudge nudge wink wink) thought that torturing you could save lives.