Skipy, you're missing the obvious problem in that scenario...

We know there are nine more bombs ready to go off. We've arrested 500 people. One of them, or several of them, or none of them, could have been involved. Are we justified in torturing them all, on the chance that one of them who actually knows something might crack and tell you?

And are we justified in torturing them, given that nearly everyone will tell you anything to get the torture to stop, even if what they're telling you is pure fiction? I have to be honest here and say that if it happened to me and I *was* involved, I'd hold out as long as I could. But if I *wasn't* involved and the answers wouldn't hurt anyone else, I'd tell them anything they wanted to make it stop, because I wouldn't have any reason not to!

And that's the paradox of torture. It's the sledgehammer and nut problem in its purest form - whilst you've got the shell off the nut, the kernel (of truth, if you like) that you've extracted is so badly damaged and mixed with bits of inedible shell that it's of no practical use to anyone.

Your call indeed...

Graham.