Torture

There is a good deal of discussion these days about the use of torture in the interrogation of suspects, especially those who might commit crimes of a kind that would put many people's lives at risk. It's the "ticking clock" scenario where a suspect is held and knows when and where the atomic bomb will go off - should torture be used to prevent the horrendous happening?
I am taken back many years to a philosophy class I was in at Cardiff University. The subject of torture and its practice had cropped up and, of course, the majority of the class went down on the side of "torture should never be used under any circumstances" (Islamic Fundamentalism was a thing of the future then).
So, naturally, I had to put my five pennorth in and be a devil's advocate, argueing a case for the use of torture.
To illustrate my point I brought up a scene in the film "Dirty Harry" in which Harry, the character played by Clint Eastwood has got hold of a villain (one of the screens' worst ever) and is twisting a knife in the man's leg to get him to reveal the whereabouts of a young woman who the villain has kidnapped and is being held captive in a drain; there is, of course, a certain time left otherwise the girl will die so Clint Eastwood has to act fast. He succeeds in obtaining the info from the guy.
Silence reigned in the room. I waited for a comment. Was he justified in doing what he had done?
Silence still reigned.
Someone changed the subject.
Do you know what I think? One of three things were going through their minds: 1. How could a film possibly deal with so sensitive a subject? 2. How low can you take an argument to try to prove a philosophical point? And 3. Who's Clint Eastwood?