under torture and through the use of such statements themselves. In the case of France and Germany such information has been used in judicially-authorized investigations and proceedings. In the UK, ambiguous rules make the use of torture evidence in court a real possibility. Cross-border intelligence cooperation is a necessity in the fight against international terrorism. Governments have a compelling interest, indeed duty, to protect their civilian populations from terrorist violence, including investigating any tip about an imminent attack. Yet government officials in the UK and Germany have gone further to argue that fundamental rules prohibiting torture can and must be broken to save lives. In particular, the hypothetical scenario of the “ticking bomb,” in which it is claimed information extracted under torture in a third country could help locate a bomb primed to explode in a crowded place, is often used to justify the use of foreign torture intelligence. Some of the best known claims that torture has produced information that have led to the disruption or prevention of terrorist attacks have proven to be false, and the “ticking bomb” scenario is unlikely ever to actually transpire. Arguments raising this mythical scenario are a distraction from the reality of ongoing intelligence cooperation in the context of established relations with countries where torture is an organized practice. Statements from UK and German government officials calling into question the absolute nature of the prohibition on torture run counter to international law and are unethical. The global ban on torture imposes obligations on states not only to refrain themselves from committing such abuse, but also to working towards the prevention and eradication of torture worldwide. States must not only prosecute torturers in their territory, but also promote accountability for crimes of torture everywhere in the world. And states must not only repudiate torture in their own territories, but also never encourage or condone torture anywhere in the world. Indeed, complicity in torture should be treated as a criminal offense under domestic law. Authorities receiving intelligence which may have been obtained by torture are under an obligation to make genuine inquiries with the sending country to determine whether torture was used to obtain it and what steps the authorities have taken to hold those responsible to account for that abuse. In the absence of proper inquiries with the sending state, appropriate oversight over the security services in the receiving state, and diplomatic follow-up where there are reasonable “No Questions Asked” 2