Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Ron Suskind implied in his article "The Unofficial Story of the Al-queda 14" that punishing and toturing the criminals of heinous crimes may bring a feeling of justice, it is still depriving the criminals of their human rights and its effect has many limitations.
I agree with Ron Suskind's view as i feel that toturing the criminals to gain access to the information they possess is against the idea of human rights. Even more so because its efficiency can be called into question.
The United States of America is responsible for most cases of criminal torture, this is contrary to the notion that it calls itself the best democratic country.Also criminal torture is ineffective because criminals under pressure tend to give false accounts and irrelevant information. An example is Abu Zubaydah. In order to stop the pain he felt during interrogations, he named names of possible suspects but they all led to dead ends.
There is another side of the issue. In the other article by former chairman of the now defunct National Crime Authority, Peter Faris, he argued that torture can be justified if the information extracted is for the "greater good of humanity".
He used an example in his article of a member of a militant Islamic group in Iraq being captured who refuses to shed light on their operations which could cause great harm to other people, torture can be applied to extract the information required to prevent or minimise any damage that could be inflicted.
I still feel that toture is unjustified, as it is ineffective. I feel that interrogators can use other methods to obtain their information, and i feel that torture should not be used in place of more effective methods.