>>Copyright 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp.
All Rights Reserved
The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia)
June 4, 2005 Saturday
Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Douglas Todd; Pg. C5
LENGTH: 1279 words
HEADLINE: The case against torture: First, it bears no relationship to the scenarios presented in TV shows; in reality, it degrades civilized society, it lowers the morale of a country's own soldiers and allies -- and often it doesn't work, anyway
BYLINE: Douglas Todd, CanWest News Service
BODY:
If you were convinced a terrorist knew how to defuse a ticking nuclear bomb programmed to blow up Greater Vancouver in the next few hours, would you feel justified in torturing him?
Would it be morally acceptable to stop the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents by thrusting a gun in the detainee's mouth and threatening to shoot, by pulling out his fingernails or, or applying electrodes to sensitive body parts?
In this age of the "war on terrorism," it appears more people may be ready to answer yes to that hypothetical question -- approving, as the lesser of two evils, such horrifying torture techniques, which continue to be used today.
If entertainment culture is any guide, the immensely popular TV suspense series, 24 -- which this season detailed how, in a one-day period, a Los Angeles counter-terrorism unit foiled a nuclear missile attack on the city -- routinely brought in torture as a plot necessity.
The hero of 24, Jack Bauer (played by Keifer Sutherland), regularly found himself thrust into ticking-time-bomb scenarios -- which are also being used today by some western government officials and academics to justify torture of suspected terrorists.
At least half a dozen characters were tortured in this season of the post-9/11 national security thriller -- often by Bauer himself, often with electric shocks. Bauer believed the suspects had information that had to be obtained within minutes to avoid mass American deaths.
To the disgust of his highly placed girlfriend, Bauer appeared brave as he maintained he was just doing his job, what was necessary. Several people he tortured, however, knew nothing.
The TV series' parallels to current affairs cannot be lost on North American audiences. Until recently we've mainly heard from Amnesty International about torture being conducted by far-flung countries such as Laos, Saudi Arabia, China, Chile and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
But the debate about torture has escalated at a time when American and British military officials are being repeatedly accused of widespread torture at detention camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Bagram U.S. air base in Afghanistan, where two Afghans were recently tortured and died.
The U.S. and Britain are among the more than 125 signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which declares torture illegal, including in national emergencies.
But Tom Ridge, the former head of Homeland Security in the U.S., and famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz are among those who have justified torture as a necessary evil in ticking-time-bomb crises. This month, some leading Australian officials and academics also supported torture, including against criminals.
The crude arguments in favour of torture on North American talk-shows go something like this:
It's okay for Americans and British officials to torture suspects because the enemy is "worse;" the pain caused by torture is minor compared to the number of deaths caused in battle; war is always hell and sometimes cruelty is necessary.
At a higher philosophical level, Dershowitz is among those who argue that, instead of trying to maintain an unrealistic ban on torture, the U.S. should regulate it.
In a ticking-time-bomb scenario, Dershowitz says authorities needing to torture a suspected terrorist would apply to a judge for a "torture warrant" that would set limits to the type and duration of pain.
However, those who oppose torture in all cases have a multi-pronged response to the ticking-time-bomb argument and other justifications of torture. They say:
* The ticking bomb dilemma is a philosophy-101 diversion that has no relationship to reality.
Scenarios depicted in shows like 24, in which seconds count in uncovering information that will protect entire cities, are truly make-believe, says Rosa Brooks, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Intelligence gathering is a slow and laborious affair. And better intelligence officers with real knowledge of diverse cultures, she says, would make illegal torture unnecessary.
* No one can presume the guilt of a suspect.
Torture means approving the abuse of many people who are bound to be innocent.
* Information gained through torture is usually false or unreliable.
Many torture victims, say researchers, will say anything to stop the agony of having electric shocks applied to their genitals or their heads repeatedly being pushed under water. What they say is useless unless corroborated.
* Most people don't break under torture.
Only five to 30 percent of torture victims break down and give information, according to researchers.
* Torture is ethically distinct from battle.
Torture is one-to-one terrorism, says Michael Ignatieff in The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. It cannot be equated with killing in self-defence or as part of a military assault; it's abuse, reflective of philosophical nihilism.
* Torture frequently leads to murder.
Once torture was routinized in Chile and Argentina in the 1970s, it was soon followed by disappearances, as the military disposed of the evidence by killing its victims, Ignatieff writes. In Argentina, thousands of torture victims were thrown, sometimes dead sometimes alive, from aircraft into the ocean.
* Torture breeds more violence.
Those subjected to physical torture usually conceive undying hatred for their torturers. Torture creates terrorists and hardens their supporters, says Ignatieff, a Canadian who teaches at Harvard. After reports of torture at Abu Ghraib prison emerged, Muslim insurgents in Iraq beheaded captors on video, as if to say, "We can do you one better."
In the 1990s, University of B.C. international affairs specialist Michael Beyers worked for eight months with an Oxford University team to try to ensure that former Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet would be kept in Spain to face charges of torturing tens of thousands of opponents.
The torture-ridden regime of Pinochet, a devout Catholic supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, is a prime example of why Byers believes there should be an "absolute" ban on torture. Byers is convinced any kind of torture, similar to capital punishment, represents an ethical "slippery slope" that degrades civilized society.
Countries that permit torture have lost the moral high ground, he says.
People underestimate, he says, how important it's been for the U.S., the world's only superpower, to champion global human rights since achieving independence in 1776.
"But the U.S. is not a beacon any more," says Byers, who taught at Duke University in North Carolina.
The fours years since Sept. 11, 2001, have been "incredibly tragic," he says, since the evidence shows people high up in the U.S. chain of command have approved torture.
By breaking international law, the U.S. is losing the war for hearts and minds, Byers says. It's not only giving strength to its enemies, but lowering the morale of its own soldiers and allies.
The damage caused by torture, both physical and psychological, is often underestimated, he adds. The TV show, 24, makes it look as if torture victims don't suffer lasting consequences. But Byers, who has interviewed the survivors of Chilean torture, knows that's a lie.
The scars never heal. The loss of dignity can last forever. Jean Amery, a courageous Belgian resistance fighter captured by the Nazis, wrote about being hung on a hook until his arms came out of their sockets.
But, worse than the physical pain, was the moral shock. Amery wrote that he could never accept that fellow humans treated his body as if it was a carcass. After decades of inner torment, Amery committed suicide.
For many, torture is worse than death. |
