By Thomas Mooney

IMAGINE that a bomb has been planted in your hometown. We do not know where. It could be in a swanky shopping centre, an entertainment precinct, the financial district or a block of flats.

What is known is that the bomb will cause death and mutilation since it contains 500kg of Semtex. We know this because the authorities, following an international security agency's tip-off, have been monitoring the phone calls of a terrorist cell. It is also known that the bomb is to be detonated at 3pm. It is now 9am and the ringleader of the terrorist cell has just been picked up by the local security agency. But he refuses to reveal the location of the bomb.

This scenario is far from academic. Similar situations have been witnessed with catastrophic consequences over the past 30 years throughout the Middle East, particularly in Israel and Lebanon, and in the country of my birth, Northern Ireland.

The security services are in a quandary. Should they dirty their hands by torturing the ringleader to extract the information that may save thousands? To do nothing would be to ignore the value of those lives. But torture runs counter to deeply cherished beliefs enshrined in many international treaties.

The United Nations adopted a resolution in 1975 prohibiting the use of torture in any circumstance, arguing: 'Any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.'

It added that 'no state may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.

Somewhat different considerations lie behind the Catholic Church's position that acts of torture are 'intrinsically evil (intrinsece malum): They are always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances'.

But while torture is intrinsically evil, it is in exceptional circumstances morally legitimate, perhaps even obligatory. For example, the security services in the scenario described morally ought to dirty their hands by torturing the ringleader.

This position, however, is not straightforwardly utilitarian - evaluating acts in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. It could be said that there are certain acts which remain wrong even when morally mandatory.

Torture is a very serious evil and even if it is in special circumstances morally legitimate, even mandatory, it nonetheless remains an evil which taints those forced to make the decision to torture, as well as those given the task of performing it.

It is the mark of a good government that such decisions will not be taken lightly. I would suggest that they be accompanied by a set of moral emotions, particularly remorse, even tragic remorse. Indeed, a key feature of the seriousness of the decision to torture is that those who make it will find that their capacity to flourish as people and as a government suffers. A good person, like a good government, will feel the full force of such tragic decision-making in the depths of their being. It will involve remorse without repudiation and this makes all the difference in a world that is less than morally excellent.

The lives of innocent people cannot be discounted and thus good governments will, at times, be morally justified in dirtying their hands to protect them. Governments and persons who - in exceptional circumstances and with securely robust information - make the difficult decision to torture may even be seen as displaying a kind of tragic moral heroism.

The issues raised here are controversial but they need to be aired. Caveats are, of course, required and this independently of the question as to whether information gained under torture is reliable.

The writer teaches at the School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University. His book, Responding To Terrorism: Political, Philosophical And Legal Perspectives, was launched on Monday.

This article was first published in The Straits Times on Oct 25, 2008.

For more The Straits Times stories, click here.