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 be done to prevent them.

Torture is an “unqualified evil”

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll