header-logo header-logo

The torture debate

08 November 2007 / Philip Rumney , Martin O’boyle
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Should we torture terrorist suspects? Philip Rumney and Martin O’Boyle consider both sides of the debate

The ongoing threat of terrorist attack and how liberal democracies should respond to that threat raise many legal and moral issues. One issue that has been discussed with increasing frequency since 11 September 2001 concerns the use of torture as an interrogation tool. This so-called torture debate is often raised in the context of the ticking bomb hypothetical, in which the authorities have in their custody terrorists who are privy to information regarding an imminent threat to innocent life.

The debate over the use of interrogation methods currently illegal under international and domestic law is of particular importance for two reasons:
- There is credible evidence that some terrorist suspects are being tortured to gain intelligence as part of the war on terror.
- Given the scale of recent terrorist attacks and the desire of some terrorist groups to acquire nuclear technology, one has to consider the potential loss of life posed by future terrorist atrocities and what might be

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll