header-logo header-logo

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

The torture debate

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

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll