Where’d the concern about the people of Uzbekistan go now that the U.S. has nothing to do with Karimov? You are hypocrites.

On the other hand, if you really think he or she is potentially dangerous you can organise a quick release with lavish thanks and praise for his co-operation, 1st class airtickets back home and a few quid in his Bank account. At the worst, he or she will never ‘work’ again, or at best, his or her organisation will then do your dirty work for you with a quick bullet in the head.

And just how, exactly, do you fairly judge the “risk potential” of a human being?

‘Torture’ is a notoriously tricky activity to define. I use the term ‘harsh treatment’ which is governed, in my mind, by three criterion. First, the interrogator must never lay a harmful hand (or implement) on the prisoner; second, the prisoner must be in good health and therefor likely to recover within hours, if not minutes, of the treatment being stopped; and third, the treatment must have a time limit, say, one week maximum.

By ‘harsh treatment’ I include stripping, hooding, hunger, thirst, sleeplessness, dis-orientation, trickery, insults, threats, bribes and so on. All of this is in search of information not confessions. Nothing produced this way can be used in a court of law but suspects should be held indefinitely according to their risk potential.

Just so no-one misunderstands me, I do not think that the militant Muslim attack on us has reached the sort of severity that would necessitate these measures now, but it might, and we should debate the response to it now rather than later.

When I wrote my comment i had only read your first comment and Quixotematic’s response — I hadn’t read your later comment. I accept that you are against torture and apologise for suggesting you were for it.

The point I was (badly) trying to make stands: that those people who think torture is a good thing deserve to be tortured more than just about anyone else.

BTW I don’t think it is a breach of manners to direct people to one’s site.

What I found particularly chilling were instances where such intelligence was being deliberately accepted or interpreted, in order to justify continuing US support to this odious regime. The US was justifying its presence and policy in Uzbekistan by the common threat faced, and prepared to buy fictions that reinforced that threat as part of the raison d’etre of the War on Terror.

I wrote: “Suffice to say that I am *not* in favour of using torture except in a ticking bomb scenario which never, to my knowedge, happens outside of Hollywood!” Phil Hunt wrote: “Since David thinks torture is OK…”

I wrote: “I do not wish to breach good blogging manners by directing people to my site, but my views on the use of torture and what I call ‘harsh treatment’ were covered in detail in several postings by me over the last few months with the name “Jenkins” in the title, if you want to google for them.” ‘Quixomatic’ wrote: “I’m also curious as to where the clear boundary between harsh treatment and torture actually lies.”

Sometimes I wonder why I bother!

I suggest we torture David to find out. Since David thinks torture is OK, I’m sure he will have no principled objection to this inquisitorial process. If he’s lucky, he could get flown to exotic places such as Syria, Uzbekistan and Guantanemo into the bargain!

I do not wish to breach good blogging manners by directing people to my site, but my views on the use of torture and what I call ‘harsh treatment’ were covered in detail in several postings by me over the last few months with the name “Jenkins” in the title, if you want to google for them. Suffice to say that I am *not* in favour of using torture except in a ticking bomb scenario which never, to my knowedge, happens outside of Hollywood! I am in favour of using harsh treatment if and when the Muslim assault on us becomes a full-time campaign. I want this to be done openly after public debate in the exactly opposite manner in which the dimwit who runs our London police introduced ‘shoot to kill’ in secret.

The MI6 officers on the ground have only a partial idea of how good the information is that they receive from who-ever, that is why back at base they have collators and analysts who do, or should do. Thus,it is imperative that agents on the ground hoover up anything and everything to send back to base. They can grade the source, of course, in order to indicate their reliability, but it is for the analysts to read the always part-finished puzzle. Intelligence is never a tidy matter.

You lot getting your knickers in a twist because MI6 has to deal with scum is so pathetic that I make no apology for telling you, once again, to grow up! And it is no good attempting to insult me by calling me a “moral cripple”. We are talking of national self interests here, and morality simply does not come into the equation. Should you doubt it, I challenge you to produce from history one single national leader who ever acted in anything other than what he thought was his nation’s self interest.

Er, Happy New Year, by the way!