There are two torture dilemmas. The first is the dilemma of torture; the second the dilemma of the torture debate. The first asks whether and under what conditions we may lift the universal ban on torture to save the lives of innocent civilians. Some thoughtful commentators reject torture in any form and for any reason, while others, like George Tenet, are more tolerant, if not more urgent, about probing the limits of interrogation. They will want to know if torture in the face of murderous terrorism is not the lesser evil. The second dilemma asks whether we do harm merely by discussing exceptions to the ban on torture. When democracies talk about exempting themselves from long-standing norms of behavior, repressive regimes are not far behind. They will want to know why they, too, cannot practice torture to prevent terror. How do we answer each of these challenges?

The debate about permissible torture in a democracy is not new. It preoccupied the British in the 1960s and 1970s and the Israelis in the 1980s and 1990s and the Americans since Abu Ghraib. Successive arguments build on the old, and in spite of marginal innovations, the contours of the debate have remained virtually unchanged since the British grappled with their methods of fighting insurgents in the colonies and Northern Ireland.