There is little doubt that the world has palpably changed since Sept. 11. Policies have been redefined, priorities realigned, and attitudes to basic moral and democratic values have undergone a sea change, to an extent that they are now almost unrecognizable. One such aspect that now seems to be undergoing this metamorphosis is the use of torture as an interrogative technique. In fact the world has started deliberating the sanctity of this repulsive evil. But the debate in the Arab press has been superficial and generally muted.
Torture is not only a subhuman act but it also assails the basic humanity of those who are tortured. It is morally repugnant and corrupts the very core of our social existence. To the Muslim, it infringes the basic precincts of Islamic law and is considered a sin against mankind.
And yet, reports have largely focused on Muslim countries for the alleged practice of this dark and medieval art. Our indifferent response to recent accusations of torture against Al-Qaeda suspects in Jordan has hardly done justice to our legal obligations, leave alone matching the international outrage and dismay. Similar accusations have surfaced at regular intervals against a bevy of Arab countries ever since the war against terrorism was launched. Moreover, repeated allegations of abusive interrogation have been levied against prison interrogators in Saudi Arabia, most recently in the case of the “alcohol turf war” inmates. Uzbekistan, another Muslim nation, has recently been in the news for similar reasons.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to single out the Muslim world in this respect. Amnesty International has repeatedly cited the Christian nations of Russia, Chile, Mexico and Serbia amongst others, along with other non-Muslim countries like India, China and Israel for the systematic use of torture. Everyone knows how Britain and France as colonial powers employed the most gruesome torture tactics to quell nationalist rebellions. More recently, Abu Ghraib has demonstrated that Western nations certainly do not lack an appetite for brutality. Actually the great bulk of torture implements are manufactured in the West and then sold openly to the developing nations.
The necessity to inflict coercive interrogation is vastly undefined, allowing for rampant abuse of authority. Some implement it solely to brutalize a prisoner to satisfy their sadistic mindset while others use it to extract information that they believe would help solve a greater evil. While the world is unanimous in its abhorrence of torture that accompanies the gratification of a sadistic indulgence, it has become ambivalent to using the “coerced information” to benefit the good of humanity.
The issue at hand is whether individual rights are less important than the collective rights of a people or nation. While the act of extracting incriminating information may certainly help in saving lives, it is at the cost of abject loss of dignity and inflicting extreme pain to the prisoner. The justness of violating prisoner rights is certainly at a more liberal cost of preserving others’ rights. It stems from a basic premise that the one being tortured is less equal and hence, his rights are inferior to those whom we are preserving. Consider the case of a Palestinian who has been captured by the Israelis and is believed to have knowledge of future strikes by suicide-bombers.
What we seem to have here is our own double standard. We would cry foul of the torture of the Palestinian or Iraqi prisoner while willing to accept the same against a local terrorist, or for that matter a common prisoner, who holds the potential to rain destruction on our lives. Essentially, we are willing to blind ourselves to the unpleasant reality of what goes on behind our own prison walls as long as it ensures our individual safety.
There are hardly any countries that have escaped the stigma of torture. Should we then move on and accept what has now become inescapable? Perhaps then, the whole debate should center not around whether or not torture is justified but on who should really be tortured. Alan Dershowitz, a reputed Harvard law professor and civil libertarian, has proposed case-by-case “torture warrants” as a means of legalizing this despicable act under certain extenuating circumstances. The danger is that very soon we would have “unwarranted warrants” or more dangerously, nations would use this legal loophole to pursue their own convoluted agenda.
Even more significant is the question of mistaken imprisonment. The case of those Guantanamo Bay detainees who were released after the realization that they were wrongfully imprisoned, are cases in point. Besides, there exists serious doubt on whether torture can even produce reliable information. And if security experts find it difficult to trust revelations obtained through torture, is there any point in painful interrogation at all?
The war against terrorism is not a war of conventional military maneuvers but a war of intelligence accumulation where interrogation plays a strategic role. Although calculated prisoner abuse may seem like a necessary option at times, nations across the globe will have to confront their inner demons and make firm choices. It is defeatist to close our eyes and pretend that it is a non-issue. The least we could do is to put a legal or diplomatic face on it.
— Dr. Faisal Sanai is a Saudi physician working at the Armed Forces Hospital in Riyadh. [email protected]
