The implications of "The right of people to be protected from indiscriminate terrorism is at least as important as the right of the Terrorist to be protected from torture" are shocking. So you can condone torture under certain circumstances can you, Charles? There is no trade-off.
We can protect people from bombs without compromising our stand against torture.
Terrorism, though nasty poses no existential threat to Britain. If we allow or condone torture, all our rights, wealth and freedoms are worthless. If we didn't stoop to those levels 60 years ago when there was an existential threat to "Our Island way of life" there's no need now.
In fact by strong persuasion, using moral argument, support for local human rights activists, economic sanction and occasionally, where nessesary, armed force, to eliminate torture and opression around the world, we* can go a long way to ending the scourge of terrorism.
Charles Clarke, along with Gordon Brown, Stephen Byars (I know he's not in the government, but he's faced no sanction for lying to parliament), Hazel Blears (can you really take her seriously?) and the whole illiberal, meddling, corrupt, smug, sanctimonious rabble represent very good reasons to vote Conservative.
*We, in this case usually means the anglosphere. Much of the rest of the world has shown itself to be far too willing to cuddle up to opressive regimes. We aren't perfect, neither are the Americans, but at least we dont have Baby doc Duvalier living the high life in our capital.