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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll