ABSTRACT
The discourse surrounding the execution of the 'War on Terror' has revolved around a triumvirate of interdependent issues: security, law and ethics. Indeed, the conduct of the War on Terror has been questioned legally, challenged ethically and has yet to arguably demonstrate a significant security dividend for those states prosecuting it. These three areas are related, each having an effect on the other. This volume is an endeavour to explore the underlying tension in their co-existence. For example, is a security solution necessarily ethically reconcilable or legally justifiable? 'Extraordinary rendition' has, for instance, been utilised as a security measure to remove detained 'enemy combatants' (note the nuanced legal semantics) from conflict zones for secret interrogation in third countries. Ostensibly such a measure could be construed as a necessary step towards extracting timely intelligence, thus contributing to the wider security situation in favour of the counter-terrorists. However, the methods harnessed to fulfil this security objective - hooding, 'water-boarding', and sleep depravation - nullify any security dividend by ethically compromising and legally stretching the entire liberal democratic premise of those polities engaged in the War on Terror. Such conduct runs the risk of creating more long-standing ills than the problems it sought to overcome in the first place.
