“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
Albert Camus
George Bush announced on Monday that he authorised the use of waterboarding. Many in our country applaud him, including parents of the victims of 7/7. I suspect, if there was a straw poll, that a significant majority would support the use of torture when interrogating terrorists. They say that a majority in Britain would be happy to see the return of the death penalty. Does majority rule make it right?
I can, of course, understand and sympathise with the emotion and the concept that it is better to torture a terrorist to obtain information than to let people die. We can all understand the concept. We can all sympathise. But does that make it right? Does it reduce us to the same level as those who commit acts of terror against us?
We are signatories to The Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of torture. Waterboarding is within the definition of torture. Our government, confirmed recently by the head of MI6, Sir John Sawyer, will not employ torture in the interrogation of terrorists or prisoners of war. It is possible that some members of our armed forces will stand trial for war crimes.
Phillipe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London and author of Torture Team, writes in The Guardian today…
Although it comes as no surprise, George Bush’s straight admission that he personally authorised waterboarding – an act of torture and a crime under US and international law – marks a dismal moment for western democracies and the rule of law. When again will the US be able to direct others to meet their human rights standards? Certainly not before it takes steps to bring its own house in order.
Bush claims that the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah “saved lives”, including British ones. There is not a shred of evidence to support that claim, one that falls into the same category as the bogus intelligence relied on to justify war in Iraq.
The article is worth reading in full.
For my part, easy though it is from the comfort of my desk – a freedom enjoyed by the blood of our forbears in World Wars and recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lives lost and destroyed through severe injury in all our wars and to be respected at 11.00 tomorrow and on Remembrance Sunday – but I believe in the Rule of Law and I believe we are stronger as a nation, as a people, for not reducing ourselves to the level of those who seek to cause us harm.
The difficulty is… that it is easy to have fine sentiments when one has not been the victim. But then I am reminded of the remarkable courage and dignity of the parents of Linda Norgove, killed in Afghanistan recently. Their dignity and compassion inspired me.
I have been appalled this week by the number of people who have followed suit in arguing in favour of torture.
Where are we that coming out in favour of torture doesn’t even seem to dent a reputation any more?
More to the point, the UK chief of intelligence directly contradicted Bush in saying that the use of torture ‘saved lives in Canary Wharf and Heathrow.
Leaving aside the moral and ethical objections to the use of torture, leaving aside the legal implications you refer to, the argument that it is better that a terrorist is tortured so that we can save lives is fallacious.
As the UK chief of intelligence pointed out, torture does not work – the evidence from the second world war demonstrates that clearly. The SS used torture, the allies didn’t. And the intelligence we obtained was better by an order of magnitude than that obtained by them.
Gaijin San – Yes….. history is with you on that issue.
I was astonished by Bush. Sands made good points about legal advice. Of course, our government relied on legal advice that waging war against Iraq was legal!
Richard Cocks – I agree. Emotion often suborns reason….
Thank you. This can never be said too many times and you have said it well.
I listened to the news about Bushboard with my war veteran father, who volunteered for the RAF in ’38 to be ready to fight such horrors as the Phalange and National Socialists. He was sickened.
He’ll be remembering comrades tomorrow, and he’ll be glad that his memories will be about their fight against the torturers. How else how could he honour them?
We who are young, will never see so much, nor live so long.
One of the hallmarks of civlisation is conforming to civilised standards. Refraining from torture is, of course, one of these standards. Once a state authorises the use of torture it crosses the boundary from being civilised to being barbaric.
Legally speaking, torture is not only prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention against Torture (to name only a few), but also prohibited under customary international law as ius cogens, the fact that crimes such as genocide and piracy are also considered to be ius cogens gives an indication of how seriously acts of torture are treated by the international community.
JacAbsolute – My father fought at Alamein and became very anti-war in his later life. He was decorated several times and joined up at 18 because he believed it right to fight for his country.
We, generations who followed, are fortunate that we have a professional army who fight in our name.
I shall certainly remember all who have fought – whether they died or were injured or survived.
Charon,
With the ‘universal’ condemnation of ‘waterboarding’ as an inhuman practice, may I inquire:
Question: Was not the act of flying two passenger planes, with civilian passengers on board, into skyscrapers filled with civilian workers, not an inhuman practice?
Point to ponder: Should not those that ‘kill be the sword’, expect to ‘die by the sword’?
Faced with the situation where your safety/society/way of life is concerned and could well be ‘lost’ for ever, where does one draw the line at extracting information?
With one’s ‘back to the wall’, can anyone ‘hand on heart’ truthfully say they would respect the Geneva Convention?
Not condoning ‘tit-for-tat’ retribution you understand – just asking what is a logical question, or three……
WiitteringsfromWitney
All your questions could be asked by any nation, faction or group. Thus ‘should not those who torture by waterboarding be tortured?’
Is your ‘back to the wall’ question about the individual in action or about the organisation and operation of a government department? I think there is a difference.
@ JacAbsolute:
1. agreed re your first sentence.
2. Is there a difference? No – would not, in that situation, any individual or government not act in the same manner?
Please feel free to discuss – would welcome a debate on this!
WitteringsfromWitney
Thank for agreeing to 1. above, although I could argue against its construction. This whole binary thing is rather false.
On 2.
We could discuss the ‘back against the wall’ position and mean entirely different things; I’ll take it as extreme threat, which is very different from the threat of extremism to use your reversible phrases.
Are you saying there is no difference between decisions made by individuals in a matter of seconds and the long slow process of reasoning, debate and documentation of government? So elected representatives are making snap decisions on issues as fundamental as the right to be free from pain and it doesn’t matter if it’s an appalling decision because at that second they were extremely stressed?
If we are to make people (those people we’re not torturing) safe, can we apply torture to the management teams of airlines, railways, pharmaceutical companies and the government’s own department of transport so that no (untortured subject) will ever die in some form of transport again? How much more effective than waiting until hundreds have been killed. What next: weathermen, the weather itself, the sea, like Knut?
If in fact it doesn’t work, are you advocating torture as a matter of style, as a matter of looking as though a government is doing the *right* thing or at least something?
Would you seriously save decent words (scrub that, we’re referring to Bush) with indecent deeds?
Please read Achebe’s poem ‘Vultures’.
Sorry. You asked for a debate and got a monologue.
In a ‘back against the wall’ scenario an individual would possibly be able to rely on the defence of necessity providing there was the danger of immediate peril. I cannot see how this would apply to a general threat and thus legitimise the actions of the state.
Charon,
Yes, lets apply some emf to a terrorists gonads and feel sorry for ourselves afterwards
It is called ‘whack’em and weep’
Gaijin San’s point is enough: torture doesn’t work (except as a means of amusing the torturers); the question of justifying it then doesn’t arise (which is a relief). The burden is on its advocates to prove that it does work.