When theory meets reality
Betsy's Page
Since 9/11, we've had several public discussions about the role of torture in trying to get information to protect us from terrorists. The nightmare scenario goes something like this: is it okay to torture a suspect if you think that he has information that could prevent an imminent attack? Absolutists say that torture is never allowable in any circumstances. They even oppose procedures that aren't torture, like waterboarding, but may convince a suspect that he is about to be tortured. One step removed from these debates is the whole question of rendition: should we send suspects that we've captured to other countries that may perhaps use torture to get information.
Well, now we have a real life scenario and it would be interesting to see how those moral absolutists feel about this. It is being reported that Pakistan had arrested Rashid Rauf, suspected of being a key Al Qaeda lieutenant and then perhaps used torture to get information out of him. And he broke and gave them information that provided key details to arrest the terrorists planning to bomb flights leaving Britain.
<<< Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled - feebly - that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not "procured or connived" at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple "risk" or "probability" of torture. >>>
The question of securing a conviction for Rauf in a British court of law is secondary to the one about getting the information in the first place. Now that we have a real life example of police possibly getting information via torture, I'd be interested in knowing if those who always oppose the use of torture are perhaps having second thoughts. In this case, did the ends justify the means? And what does that say for future investigations?
UPDATE: I want to clarify that I remain agnostic on whether or not Rauf was actually tortured. Having a human rights worker say that he was tortured is no proof at all. There is no indication how this woman might actually know what went on in a top secret interrogation.
My questions revolve around what might be a real life example, rather than a theoretical construct, of how people feel about torture of Al Qaeda detainees if it can reveal information that will save lives. And, once you agree to torture performed by Pakistanis to help the British, what about Britain doing the torture themselves? What about Americans? It is fine to have a blanket statement that torture is never permissible in a civilized society, but, in my opinion, it is not as clearcut a moral question as it might appear to some.
betsyspage.blogspot.com
guardian.co.uk |
