ABSTRACT
The rules of war – both general and civil – have long included a complete ban on torture. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, defences of ‘coercive interrogation’ – in some circles at least seen as synonymous with torture – became, if not commonplace, certainly much more respectable than they had been. And for many who were critical of this development, this seemed almost unprecedented. Yet their historical memory is playing them false. There have been other contexts, and other situations in which similar reactions can be noted, and to assess the efficacy and applicability of such attempts in the current context it might perhaps be the case that we should examine other occasions. One such case is Northern Ireland.
