It is not difficult to imagine a pub conversation where all parties agree that it is perfectly acceptable to torture and commit atrocities against those who would do us harm. I suspect there are internet forums which specialise in exactly this type of rhetoric and, judging by comments I have seen in recent months on The Sun and the Daily Mail websites, there is quite a lot of support for torturing people, hanging them and, indeed, letting ‘our boys hunt them down like dogs’.
It would not surprise me, given the Right’s enthusiasm in days gone by for the death penalty, if some in high places, in parliament and elsewhere, do not ‘secretly’ hold these views.
The issue is perfectly straightforward – (a) do we adhere to an international law which prohibits the use of torture? (b) do we want to be a society that fights, but fights as fairly as the heat of warfare allows within the laws of warfare? and (c) are we prepared to do this, when all about us, others – do not wish to subscribe to such a high ethic?
David Cameron must not compromise on torture
Guardian: The coalition should wait for the results of the torture inquiry before proposing legislation that bows to transatlantic pressure
Clive Stafford-Smith, Director of Reprieve, writes in the Guardian today. It is worth reading. I make no comment. Mr Stafford-Smith is eloquent.
Government to compensate torture victims as official inquiry launched
Guardian: “PM moves to ensure courts will no longer be able to disclose evidence about British complicity in torture. David Cameron today ordered an unprecedented inquiry into evidence and allegations of British complicity in the torture and abuse of terror suspects. But he immediately moved to ensure the courts would no longer be able to disclose damning evidence which, he implied, could jeopardise intelligence sharing with the US.”
This is good news as to the first part – even if we have the rather curious business of current cases against the British government being ‘settled’ before Sir Peter Gibson begins his Inquiry. It is also good news that there is a judge leading it. The questioning should, one hopes, be rather sharper than the demonstration we saw given at The Chilcott Iraq Inquiry. The argument that it will be cheaper to settle rather indicates that Cameron expects the security services to have benefitted from torture. It can’t all be cost cutting…can it? No admissions will be made, of course, in any ‘settlement’. Pragmatism may win out here but at least the government is doing something to clear this up. Of course – it is possible that our security services are clean and are, indeed, doing good work without breaking rules indirectly. That would be a boon and morale boost to the war on terror.
What is not such good news is the idea of promulgating legislation to stop judges disclosing evidence of British complicity in torture. Assuming that Britain chooses the moral high ground option and is prepared to pay more than lip service to international law, I would have thought that if we are doing it, the judges should reveal this. it is, of course, a nod to our American cousins who, it would seem from past events, have a nice line in water boarding, and other subtle tortures which we may be found to have benefitted from.
The discussion is important and, I would suggest, so are the answers to the three questions I suggested above. Your views, as ever, are very welcome. I know which side of the debate I am on – but I do not prescribe for others….
Well I would have thought it’s pretty straightforward, If you are willing to torture, then you are the bad guys, the villains, the black hats. No excuses ever,
As for the argument that we have benefited from torture, it’s complete rubbish. All of the evidence is that torture does not work in any way, apart from the cheap gratification of politicians who want to appear to be doing something.
Ceebs
I wonder how valuable information gleaned by torture is…. how can the torturers know that it is real? I suppose it could corroborate or tie in with other information. I wonder if there is always that nagging doubt.?
We shall see how this pans out…. but a step in the right direction?
Well hopefully it is, but the person in charge having such close ties to the security services is not a good sign.
but the other questions you ask hit the nail on the head, how can you possibly know that the person being tortured is telling you the truth rather than what he thinks he wants you to know, just to make the pain go away. If you use it to corroborate some other information, wouldn’t you be providing leading questions?
On Page 478 of Rejali’s Torture and Democracy, he says
For harvesting Information, torture is the clumsiest method available to organisations, even clumsier in some cases than flipping coins or shooting randomly into crowds. The sources of error are systematic and ineradicable…
in short torture for information works best when one would need it least, peacetime , non-emergency conditions… Whether one can justify torture when there is no emergency or when other methods of gathering intelligence are available, is another matter.
The U.K. is a signatory to the “Torture Convention” so we ought never to be involved in it or even remotely to be encouraging it.
There are several cogent reasons to criticise the government’s response to all this but, for now at least, I am pleased that there is to be some form of investigation. I am also pleased that new “guidelines for interrogation” have been issued.
There can be no justification for the use of torture. It violates international treaty law and ius cogens, as well as English law (statutory and arguably common law). In my mind there are two reasons for this blanket prohibition. The obvious one is the suffering it imposes on the individual. The second is more philosophical in that torture treats the individual as a means to an end, essentially dehumanising the person. If we can’t recognise humanity how are we expected to protect it?
The Allied Powers indicted German war criminals for torture at Nuremberg, people have been prosecuted for torture at the war crimes tribunals for the former-Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and it is a criminal offence under the Statute of the ICC. I’m not comparing the torture that happened under the Nazis to what the US/UK/associates have allegedly done, but torture is torture whether it happens in a concentration camp or whether it is relabelled ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. There is an absolute line and once it’s crossed there is in principle little difference.
what they said – it doesn’t work. once we have digested that point we can shout happily about it being repugnant (which i think it is as well).
David Cameron today ordered an unprecedented inquiry into evidence and allegations of British complicity in the torture and abuse of terror suspects. But he immediately moved to ensure the courts would no longer be able to disclose damning evidence which, he implied, could jeopardise intelligence sharing with the US.”
err is it just me or is that the action of a tyrant? how loud would we be shouting about the rule of law if mugabe had done this?
AND CHARON, DO YOU STILL REALLY THINK THIS GOVERNMENT IS A FRIEND OF FREEDOM???
Simplywondered has a point. After the general election I wished to give the new “coalition” government a “fair wind” and see how things went. There are some positive steps and perhaps this “torture inquiry” is better than nothing. However, one has to be concerned at the attempt to “gag” the courts.
Do we know just what form the “gag” takes. Perhaps Cameron intends to issue Public Interest Immunity applications in every case in which the USA has any involvement??? Or, does Cameron intend to have legislation on the matter????
It is well established law that if there is a public interest immunity application then it is a matter for the judges to determine how to deal with the matter. It is not a matter for the executive to make that decision.
I am also concerned at the way in which the government is now not merely trying to “balance the books” economically but they have created a culture in which almost everyone is seeking to make massive cuts. I am seeing very little evidence of any actual social conscience in the management of financial affairs.