In the case of Corporal Nachshon
Wachsman (not Waxman), there was in fact extreme time pressure,
although not a time bomb.  Hamas forced Wachsman to make tape in which
he said that if 200 Palestinian prisoners were not released by a
certain date and time (8 pm Friday Oct 14, 1994), he would be killed. 
Hamas released the tape on Tuesday, Oct 11, which was the first
indication that Wachsman had been kidnapped.  The Israeli security
forces located and captured an accomplice to the kidnap, who revealed
the location of the house in which Wachsman was being held.  They then
mounted a rescue efffort, which failed, and Wachsman was killed.  So,
whatever interrogation method they used on the accomplice, it did work
in that it quickly produced accurate information.
 
 
 
The Wachsman matter is the very unusual case in which:
(1) the information sought is discrete and particular; (2) the prisoner
does have the information, the interrogator knows it, and the prisoner
knows that the interrogator knows; (3) the accuracy of the information
can be confirmed very quickly, and the prisoner knows that the
consequence of lying is likely to be very severe.  It is very different
from the open-ended interrogation that was conducted at Guantanamo.
 
 
 
The Wachsman case is the sort of situation that,
according to the Israeli Supreme Court’s very interesting opinion on
the use of torture, could potentially be justified by the defense of
necessity.  In the Court’s analysis, torture is a crime.  Like other
crimes involving intentional infliction of injury (e.g., assault), a
person charged the crime can defend himself on the grounds of necessity
(e.g., yes I hit that man in the bank but only to prevent him from
shooting the teller).  The Supreme Court concluded that in any given
case, if the police or army chose to commit torture they would be
permitted to defend on the narrow ground of necessity – but that there
could be no blanket a priori permission to torture and that the defense
of necessity was one for the courts to evaluate, case by case, and
could never by a grant of permission to torture at the discretion of
the security services. 

Exactly. One should also note that if this is the perfect example of justification for torture, the ultimate end, the successful rescue of an individual, was a failure.