Algiers, General Paul Aussaresses, justified the widespread use of torture on the grounds that the law wasn't up to the task: "The judicial system was not suited for such drastic situations". Cue Alan Dershowitz, the chief proponent of judicial torture today.

In Dershowitz's 'ticking bomb scenario', judges would grant domestic (and only domestic) 'torture warrants' to extract 'preventive intelligence' concerning imminent attacks. The subsequent torture, it is suggested, could involve needles pushed under the fingernails: excruciating, but clearly non-lethal.

Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, is held to be one of America's foremost civil libertarians. Though he has no wish to see torture employed, he is aware that it may sometimes be necessary. Moreover, he says, entrenched squeamishness on the part of an out-dated legal system is actually facilitating the creation of places precisely like Guantanamo, and processes such as 'extraordinary rendition'.

By legalising Dershowitz's solution, the "deception, cruelty and compromise of

law" that concern Sands would be avoided, and instances of torture possibly reduced.

Judicial torture is politically honest, too. Despite signatures on countless Human Rights conventions, it is quite clear that torture happens anyway in the West. It is totally hypocritical to accept the benefits of torture while pretending it doesn't occur (or, worse, dissembling about the terminology).

Morally and legally, it is essential that we learn to call a spade a spade - no doubt precisely the reason this particular idea has never been put to the vote.

"It's never happened," says Sands of the hypothetical ticking bomb. But he misses the point that this is no reason not to prepare for it ­ - ethically, legally and tactically. Furthermore, Sands and the rest of the 'moral high ground' brigade would have us believe that they wouldn't resort to torturing a terrorist suspect even if their own children were attached to the aforementioned ticking bomb.

I doubt this is true, but it doesn't really matter. If that's their idea of morality, I'm glad to discover I simply can't agree.