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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll