First, let's assume that torture works (i.e. it gives us the answers we want). If we assume it doesn't work then there's no point in torture or this debate. There will always be people who claim that torture works, so let's just assume it does indeed work excellently and 100% of the time.
Second, assume that many innocent people are falsely accused and convicted, because that is true (if you don't believe that, just look at the Innocence Project).
Third, if we know that innocent people are sometimes falsely accused and convicted, then it means it could happen to you, your parents, your children.
So now the only question you have to answer is: Are you OK with the scenario where you, an innocent and falsely accused individual, are tortured, in the interest of public safety? If you are not OK with that happening to you or your children, then you cannot support torture for anyone else either. If you are OK with that, then you have two tasks: 1) when are you volunteering as a torture subject to prove you aren't just saying that, and 2) you must convince everyone else that they should be OK with that if it happens to them (or 51% of the population in a democracy). You might succeed on 1) (doubtful) but you will fail on 2) if all of those people also have to complete task 1).
The conclusion is that it's impossible to torture without introducing a double-standard. Sure, we can do that, but that has the same logic as a law like "I can do anything I want, and you can do nothing, because I'm me and you're not me"?