Let me try to clarify my position.
Nations have an inherent right of self-defense, but they also have obligations. Exercise of the right of self-defense does not mean a nation is freed from its basic obligations. For example, following 9/11, the U.S. had a right to undertake a more aggressive counterterrorism campaign, but such a campaign had to be conducted within the framework of its constitution, not to mention the Laws of War and other instruments to which the U.S. is a party.
A recent court case concering electronic surveillance reaffirmed the paramount importance of fundamental liberties, with the Northern California District Court ruling that the Executive Branch could not treat the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Law's (FISA) requirements as optional. A similar concept applies when it comes to protecting the lives of civilians. Just because a nation is free to combat terrorism does not mean that it can ignore established principles concerning civilian protections e.g., that they cannot be deliberately targeted.
We agree on that point. I believe the U.S. and other countries that have only recently faced terrorism can learn much from the UK's example, among others.Thankfully the British Government did not see any need for it to be anything more than a police issue. They saw no need to torture and make people disappear...
We did not respond by random acts of inhumanity. The British public would not have stood for it.
Although I expect a given response that the nascent liberalization campaign will likely be suspended, I don't agree with such a move. I still favor liberalization to the large extent that it is still possible. I don't believe major elements of liberalization and required counterterrorism measures are necessarily mutually exclusive.Where I disagree with you is in where I see an implied agreement that it is right that there should now be none.
I favor aggressive policing, intelligence, prosecution, and targeted military operations. I do not support torture or extra-judicial conduct. There's a body of research that finds that torture does not yield useful information. At the same time, it damages a nation's reputation....that seems to mean people disappearing, being killed illegally, being beaten and tortured.
Umarov and his terrorist organization are responsible for provoking a Russian response and difficulties it might cause. However, were Russia to commit war crimes or other crimes against humanity, those who commit such acts are responsible for those crimes. Russia's obligations have not been rendered irrelevant.... I find your belief that the Umarov and their organisation is responsible for what Russia does now wrong.
Hopefully, the above makes things a bit more clear where I stand on the issues.