Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus:
You torture the person.
You prevent the bomb killing civilians.
Then you hand yourself in to the authorities.
End of moral dilemma.
I understand you perfectly.
The problem is you don't understand your own argument.
You cannot define any morality if you do not have an absolute standard to define it with.
In that case, you cannot argue that anything is "right" or "wrong", all you can argue for is expediency.
And if it is expedient for someone to rape someone, then you have no right to condemn that.
You need to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion.