At the risk of 'flooding' I should as some quotes from the previous discussion on this:

Desmond Manderson:

The centre-piece of Bagaric and Clarke’s defence argues by analogy to “the right of self-defence, which of course extends to the defence of another”. Just as we are entitled to respond with violence to a murderous attack, they say, we are entitled to protect others: if the only way to protect them is by torturing somebody for information, then torture must be legitimate too. But the analogy falls down in at least THREE ways.

FIRST, the principle of self-defence recognises a reality: when it’s “him or me” a law that said I could not respond to an attacker would be simply unenforceable. Here the violence of torture is a choice deliberately made and carried out, and not purely responsive.

COMMENT-
RUBBISH. Mumbai IS a reality, and extracting information is absolutely 'responsive'.

SECOND, their analogy assumes the only point it needs to prove. One can legally defend oneself

COMMENT- huh?

THIRD self-defence is about individual action, torture is about government action.

COMMENT- more rubbish. 'Torture' of a captured individual who massacred so many lives would have a goal of preventing future attacks and is very much 'self defense'.

I'm attacking the arguments here.. thats all. I don't believe they hold any weight whatsoever. Clearly Manderson lives in some cuckoo land academic bubble not connected to the real world.

Hmmmm... I have noted here that no one has asked if the Mumbai Terrorists had any regard to the Human Rights of those persons they killed & injured during their attack. I don't think so.

So the Question really is. "Should the authorities have any regard for the terrorists right?" I don't think so. Like with like.

Now. for all the sickly sweet out there. Please detail how YOU would persuade this terrorist to impart his knowledge of his terrorist group to the Indian Authorities? I will expect a Dot Point explanation, of course. Maybe we will learn something new.

I take umbrage at the suggestion that because I don't advocate torture that I'm somehow "sickly sweet".

Ask yourself this big fella: How many people do you think were tortured last year in India? How many people do you think were tortured in the last decade? How many women raped and humiliated?

Then ask your decidedly unsweet self this: How many terrorist attacks did they prevent? I know that is a question that is very difficult to answer, but it's certainly easier to count how many they failed to prevent.

Before you answer take a look at these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7734777.stm
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0204/97/ (written in 2003)

Yeah, torture's just dandy isn't it? Who needs human rights?
I'll ask again: how many people should we torture to prove that we can prevent an attack? How many Muslims, how many Sikhs, Maoists, women?
Torture as a policy won't stop the attacks.

Any suggestion that I don't like torture because I'm soft or "sickly sweet" you can just shove straight up where the sun don't shine, which is probably where they'll stick something if they ever suspect you of terrorism in Andhra Pradesh.

Polycarp

I almost found myself close to a dilemma.

My immediate response would be to treat such a terrorist in a humane manner and protect him in a way he does not deserve.

However, should it be my daughters or friends at risk from the terrorists co-conspirators, I would do everything and anything to extract all information / intelligence possible.

George Orwell wrote “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

That being so, I would have to accept responsibility for the actions of those rough men, regardless of how clean I might pretend my hands were.

So how do I resolve or maybe just rationalize what to do?

I guess, when someone engages in the willful murder of others, their right to any “humane treatment” is suspended and they bear and suffer the consequences of what they started.

So just place me in the “heartless” basket,

The company is better there than over with the sanctimonious hypocrites

Boaz, your capacity for self-deception knows no bounds.

>>bear in mind..I stated my own position on this. "Psychological and technology" which I understand can be quite successful<<

What do you regard as "psychological and technology" torture, Boaz?

>>ASSUMPTION. "Torture can extract true information"<<

Sure, studies have found that torture can occasionally do this.

However, these same studies also conclude that it is a non-predictable event. Where people have been trained to resist or mislead, for example, the chances that the information is "true" diminish, and the information elicited cannot be relied upon.

Please note also, that the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM 34-52), describes torture or coercion as a “poor technique” because it “yields unreliable results” and “can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” ("On the Effectiveness of Coercive Interrogation" Anush Emelianova and Daniel Friedman, Washington Undergraduate Law Review)

http://students.washington.edu/wulr/archive/?volume=2&issue=1

This is echoed in the CIA's Counterintelligence Interrogation manual, which warns against the dangers of coercion for intelligence agents, explaining that through psychological and physical duress, the source’s “ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist."

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/kubark.htm

It also points out "In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance."

And Jayb, I'm sure your bravado sounds great down the pub...

>>So the Question really is. "Should the authorities have any regard for the terrorists right?" I don't think so<<

But I think you are working along the same self-deceiving lines as Boaz. Revenge - using torture - is great, especially when there's no chance of you getting hurt. The fact that you won't get any useable information is secondary to your getting your own back on the evil creatures, right?

But don't kid yourself that it is anything more than revenge, pure and simple.

And don't forget Alan Dershowitz’s argument. “We won’t know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he’s not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures"

Think on that, if you ever find yourself in the hands of Homeland Security.

So Col, you would override your immediate response by invoking your children, you also avoid the word "torture". Weasel words.
Humane treatment (or some lack thereof) is not the issue. Torture is the issue. Legalised torture is an abrogation of peoples individual rights for the security of the state. It is at complete odds with libertarianism.

So now we have a self-confessed "libertarian" and an evangelical "Christian" rationalising away a soft attitude to torture, and to use a quote from George Orwell to boot!
And written with not even a whiff of irony.

I wonder what ol' George had to say about torture eh Col? Maybe we could set up a Ministry of Love.

Col, I wonder what your attitude would be if one of your friends or children were ever erroneously picked up as suspects and not "treated humanely" (as you like to put it).

Just ask yourself this: would you advocate the use of torture by Australian police?

If you can answer that one truthfully, then you will know who the real hypocrites are.