This “ticking time bomb” scenario where torture was effective at stopping some terror attack has as far as I can tell never happened.
When I was in college Alan Dershowitz participated in a public debate about torture in front of students where (aside from a great deal of incoherent blather and blatant disrespect his opponent, a woman whose husband had been tortured and murdered) he pulled some example of torture stopping a terror plot in (I believe?) Southeast Asia.
But when I looked up the details after the debate, it turned out that in fact torture hadn’t accomplished anything and the plot was stopped through unrelated regular investigative police work.
The whole argument is disingenuous, and many of the torture apologists behind it are lazy and academically dishonest.
> why are tortures different than killing terrorist (or "terrorists") in remote countries without trial
Personally I would argue that assassination is an unjust, illegal, and ineffective tactic for fighting against criminals, even violent criminals.
But still, assassination and torture are pretty clearly different. One is killing someone who presumably cannot be easily captured by ordinary law enforcement action. The other is inflicting horrific pain and suffering on a defenseless person in custody out of spite, for no practical benefit.