Notes

Start with definitions. Most civilised people squirm at the thought of putting suspected terrorists on the rack or pulling off toenails. What if that prisoner knew the whereabouts of a ticking bomb—maybe a biological, chemical or even nuclear one? Wouldn't a little sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation or even water-dunking be justified to save hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives? Whatever the law says, a lot of people seem to think so.

In a BBC survey of 27,000 people in 25 countries last October, more than one out of three people in nine of those countries, including America, considered a degree of torture acceptable if it saved lives. Opposition was highest in most European and English-speaking countries (see chart). Another poll in 2005 by the Pew Research Centre found that nearly half of all Americans thought the torture of suspected terrorists was sometimes justified.

Many critics of torture claim that it is ineffective as well as repugnant. Since people will say anything just to stop the pain, the information gleaned may not be reliable. On the other hand, if people do say anything under torture, you might expect some of what they say to be true and therefore—if those being tortured really are terrorists—useful to the authorities. Torture certainly helped induce Guy Fawkes to betray his co-conspirators after they had tried to blow up King James I and the British Parliament on November 5th 1605.

Asked recently about the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation in secret prisons, George Tenet, the CIA's director until 2004, replied that the agency's widely condemned rendition programme had saved lives, disrupted plots and provided “invaluable” information in the war against terrorism. Indeed, while denying the use of full-blown torture, he said that the programme on its own was “worth more than the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Mr Ignatieff, for his own part, sees no trumping argument on behalf of terrorists that makes their claims to human rights and dignity prevail over the security interests—and right to life—of the majority. Yet he continues to advocate a total ban. “We cannot torture, in other words, because of who we are,” he says. He knows that many will disagree.

Imagine torture being legally implemented? Giving the State the right to torture a HUMAN BEING is a) Unconstitutional b) Ethically/Morally wrong c) Impractical d) Archaic c) Dangerous. Firstly, how can reliable intelligence ever be gained from torture? By Evolution, in it in our very nature as humans to shy away from pain. The victim will tell anyone willing to listen anything they want to hear to make it stop. They are not concerned with giving accurate information. Secondly, while torture remains illegal, any so-called evidence gained cannot be used in court. Thirdly, by permitting torture in one case i.e. terrorism, you're setting a precedent. Do we want a torture culture? For example, low-ranking soldiers tortured for sport in grotesque ways in Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq. This leads me to another point- do we really want to countries such as the USA, one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, the right to torture for information? Despite there being too numerous reasons for forbidding torture, both practical and moral, for me it all comes down to this. I don't want to be tortured and I don't want others to be tortured in the name of ideologies like "the greater good", or "the ends justify the means". No amount of lives saved is worth our humanity.