In the UK we've just had a controversial ruling about torture - namely that the state should be permitted to use evidence obtained by torture by foreign agents in deciding whether to detain suspected terrorists in the UK. On one hand, you could say that such evidence is completely prohibited by the Torture Convention, is inherently unreliable and that the ruling encourages the use of torture. You can't lock people up on the basis of evidence extracted through torture. On the other, you could say that it would be irresponsible for the State not to act in protection of its citizens if it received evidence - whatever the source - that its citizens were in danger of a terrorist attack. It's a question of choosing the lesser of two evils. What do you think?