This House would use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.

If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as quickly as possible.

If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

Terrorist networks use fear, pain and suffering as their stock in trade. By definition, terror organisations are not bound by legal due process or rights of appeal and review. Instead they deal out death to innocent members of society who have no power to alter the events and policies that motivate terrorists atrocities.

By contrast, the first role of governments is to protect their citizens’ safety and they should use all tools possible to ensure that innocents are not threatened with random death and destruction.

In the light of these two realities, it is appropriate for governments to take extreme measure, such as torture, to protect their citizens.

When battling those who would seek to replace the rule of law and democratic governance with religious decree, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that the principles of a civilised society are paramount.

In the light of that reality, for the state to use the very tools of fear and violence that they are fighting against sends out the wrong message. It means, in effect, that nations have put themselves on the same moral level as the terrorist organisations they are fighting.

Instead it is important to demonstrate that actions undertaken quite legally are an effective bulwark against terror. Moreover, it is necessary to demonstrate that these values are part of a system of rule of law; that values of justice, fairness and accountability are seen as valuable both by a states’ leaders, but also by arbiters (judges) and its people.

The use of force and fear in enhanced interrogation gives quick results. In the event of a bomb hidden somewhere in Manhattan, it’s vital to have information quickly. Nobody, even the most diehard proponents of enhanced interrogation, would suggest that it is pleasant or should be used on a routine basis; the point is that techniques such as waterboarding are effective and fast.

Responding to terrorist threats is something that needs to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of due process and legal procedure that they trials and questioning take place in a framework of days or weeks.

The primary difficulty with the use of torture is not one of principle but one of practice – it doesn’t work. You simply have no way of checking whether the information is accurate. By using force or the threat of force, suspects are under pressure to say something- anything- that will stop the pain they are experiencing. However, information acquired this way will not necessarily be true

In the light of this, the use of torture actually slows things down the process of investigating and preventing terrorist threats. This is particularly true of terror suspects for whom death has no fear and for whom it may, in fact be a goal. A much safer approach to rooting out terrorist who seek to martyr themselves is old fashioned, and perfectly legal, investigation.

If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as quickly as possible.

If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

Terrorist networks use fear, pain and suffering as their stock in trade. By definition, terror organisations are not bound by legal due process or rights of appeal and review. Instead they deal out death to innocent members of society who have no power to alter the events and policies that motivate terrorists atrocities.

By contrast, the first role of governments is to protect their citizens’ safety and they should use all tools possible to ensure that innocents are not threatened with random death and destruction.

In the light of these two realities, it is appropriate for governments to take extreme measure, such as torture, to protect their citizens.

When battling those who would seek to replace the rule of law and democratic governance with religious decree, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that the principles of a civilised society are paramount.

In the light of that reality, for the state to use the very tools of fear and violence that they are fighting against sends out the wrong message. It means, in effect, that nations have put themselves on the same moral level as the terrorist organisations they are fighting.

Instead it is important to demonstrate that actions undertaken quite legally are an effective bulwark against terror. Moreover, it is necessary to demonstrate that these values are part of a system of rule of law; that values of justice, fairness and accountability are seen as valuable both by a states’ leaders, but also by arbiters (judges) and its people.

The use of force and fear in enhanced interrogation gives quick results. In the event of a bomb hidden somewhere in Manhattan, it’s vital to have information quickly. Nobody, even the most diehard proponents of enhanced interrogation, would suggest that it is pleasant or should be used on a routine basis; the point is that techniques such as waterboarding are effective and fast.

Responding to terrorist threats is something that needs to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of due process and legal procedure that they trials and questioning take place in a framework of days or weeks.

The primary difficulty with the use of torture is not one of principle but one of practice – it doesn’t work. You simply have no way of checking whether the information is accurate. By using force or the threat of force, suspects are under pressure to say something- anything- that will stop the pain they are experiencing. However, information acquired this way will not necessarily be true

In the light of this, the use of torture actually slows things down the process of investigating and preventing terrorist threats. This is particularly true of terror suspects for whom death has no fear and for whom it may, in fact be a goal. A much safer approach to rooting out terrorist who seek to martyr themselves is old fashioned, and perfectly legal, investigation.

The advantage of a complete ban on torture is that it leaves no room for doubt, no possibility for confusion, no need to apply personal judgement. Under the status quo, it is simply illegal to use force or the threat of force to solicit information from a suspect, regardless of the charge.

The moment that becomes something other than a complete ban then it puts an intolerable pressure on security officials to decide when it is justified and when it is not.

The experience of Abu Grahib demonstrates how the use of abusive treatment can become routine, even trivial, all too quickly. If it is acceptable to use torture to prevent mass-murder, then why not murder? If for murder than why not rape? And so on.

It is perfectly possible to put legal structures in place that allow for judicial overview of the interrogation techniques used. In most Western countries – the most common targets of modern terrorism – there are already legal frameworks for judicial approval of the extension of detention periods and so forth on an emergency basis. The same form of oversight could be used here and exactly the same principle of retrospective appeal could apply to ensure that the capacity was not misused.

The principle that all people are presumed innocent and, as a result, should not be abused either physically or mentally by officers of the state is one that took centuries- not to mention a great deal of blood and sweat- to establish. In the words of British Chief Justice Phillips this respect for human rights is, in and of itself, “a vital part in the fight against terror”, as if terrorism is to be defeated states that ascribe to such principles must show that they remain true to them in order to win the ideological battle.

Using torture on suspected terrorist would be to tear apart that basic principle in response to crimes, which, it has been noted, are on nothing like the scale of the industrialised warfare of the twentieth century, would be a massively damaging step. Regardless of the scale of the crime the individual must have protections against false accusation and punishment, this means that a fair trial is necessary in order to determine innocence or guilt. 

The era of battlefield warfare has passed. The war on terror may be a new form of combat, but the results are no less serious. Were a terrorist flying a military bomber aircraft to deliver a payload of death and destruction on one of the world’s major cities, nobody would think twice about shooting it down, killing the crew and preventing the bombing.

There is no meaningful way in which the example above is morally different from leaving a bomb in a station or on a subway train. Societies have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary. The combatants involved in this process consider themselves to be at war and revel in the fatalities they cause. It is only sensible for states to treat these individuals as though that war were a reality in the more traditional meaning of the word.

If we accept that this is a war, then its focus is not so much political control of territory as the preservation of a way of life. It is ridiculous to fight to defend principles of equality and decency using the tool of abandoning them the moment they become inconvenient.

The forces of religious extremism wish to undo 1,400 years of democratic development. We should not assist them in that process by allowing the major powers of the West throw out the most basic principles of the rule of law. Such a move, ultimately, has the potential to be vastly more destructive than the actions of a few fanatics

No amount of legal niceties would bring any comfort to the families of those slaughtered in terrorist atrocities around the world. When you are fighting an enemy that has no time for the European Convention on Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, English common law or the Geneva Convention it is simply impractical to apply those standards.

The basic principle of terrorism is to cause as much fear, panic and destruction as possible. Terrorists do not have a set goal in mind, they are not functioning as rational individuals, and affording them the luxury of treating them as such ignores what they are likely to do.

The great wars of the twentieth century were fought within the confines of post-Enlightenment thought, however extreme that may have become. The wars of the 21st seem set to be Mediaeval in nature, with the promise of paradise rather than provinces as the reward for martyrdom. The defense of the values of liberty and democracy must reflect that new and chilling reality.