The crucial question in all of this is whether torture is an appropriate strategy for a democracy that prides itself on its committment to law. The answer has to be no -- NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES.

This is the tough part. It is easy to argue that torture is necessary to ferret out useful information or to prevent some tragedy. A counter-argument of course is that torture is generally known not to work. But some could argue that even if there is a chance of it working, it should be used.

The test of a strong democracy is in its willingness to say that in spite of the possibility of getting useful information, it is not worth it in terms of the erosion of the moral ground upon which we stand. That the moral ground is the most valuable thing we have. Even if it results in innocent deaths. This is the real test. From time to time during the IRA struggle, it was clear that the moral ground was to be able to say that a society is strong enough to face up to terrorists, to allow itself to be bombed rather than give that up. But the pressure against that is incredibly strong, and it requires every ounce of restraint and moral courage -- courage on an ordinary daily basis, not a military basis -- not to give in to it. Very, very few societies and people can manage it. The British and the French and now the Americans have succumbed to it.

yours,

Peter T.