There appear to be conflicting stories about the sources of information that led to the arrests of suspected terrorists in the UK (who were planning to blow up several inter-continental flights over U.S. soil). But, it certainly seems that the arrest and interrogation of two suspects in Pakistan gave British authorities some vital information - as relayed to them by Pakistan - that led to the arrests. But here's the elephant that will soon come into focus...
Pakistan has never made any excuses for its interrogation techniques. They have no qualms about stating up front that they use pain and anguish in uniquely extreme ways to extract information. It is almost certain that this is how information was extracted from the two suspects.
I have long been conflicted about the role of torture in interrogations. Sure, you can go back in history and say well torture isn't an option because we shouldn't even be there etc., etc. but that's evading the question at hand.
Did torture and the violation of Geneva convention protocols (I realize that many feel these do not apply as terrorists may not be classified as "enemy combatants") save thousands of lives? Is it (unfortunately or otherwise) justifiable?
I have no firm answers yet, but look to yours for some guidance...