The argument that there is “no case for torture, ever” (Arab News, Oct. 25) discusses the use of information extracted by torture as evidence for conviction begs questions.
Limiting it to information extracted by torture to detainees of a constituted authority is slightly disingenuous. Within the legal system of the UK, torture is held up as a revolting practice to be shunned by every right thinking law-abiding person.
First we have to define torture then step outside the anodyne parameters of our comfortable Western society and the fabled “right thinking” man.
Most people surely could think of circumstances where torture — of which there is no universally accepted definition — might be an option they would use.
US law recognizes torture as the infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”
The White House though still prevaricates. Jay S. Bybee, a government lawyer, said in August 2002 that only physical pain “as intense as that accompanying organ failure or death” qualified as torture and that “the infliction of pain” must also be “the offender’s specific objective.”
In other words and rather simplistically, sadism equals torture, as “the infliction of pain” must also be “the offender’s specific objective.”
Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention agree not to commit torture under certain circumstances in wartime. Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to commit certain specific forms of torture. Some see torture as a severe violation of human rights yet it remains in use throughout the world in several contexts.
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment refers to: “An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”, for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, “or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind”.
The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines torture more broadly than the UN Convention. It includes as torture “the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish”.
With no universal definition, where do you draw the line? Withdrawing a five-year-old child’s sweet ration until he tells you where he hid the keys to your new car is torture? It sure causes mental anguish: Believe me.
That same five-year-old is gang-raped and one perpetrator is before you. Is your first thought charity and the human rights of the sinner or the sinned against? Can you really say that you would accord him his full human rights in the quest for information? Is torture justified?
Scale up: You have in front of you a person you know has set a timed explosive device in a skyscraper. Must the many suffer to preserve the very vaguely defined rights of the one?
Some people leave the “civilized” world where citizens have respect for each other’s integrity. Are they then under a greater law, your law or none at all?
This assumes the “reasonable man.” There are a lot of extremely “unreasonable” people in the world, willing to kill people for their beliefs, from whole armies to militia units.
Scale up to a state. Can it inflict torture on another state? Both are only legal entities, but both comprise people. By the definitions above, a state very probably can commit, “an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person,” for “punishment, intimidation or coercion.” Two words here: Palestine; Halabja.
Spike Milligan, the English humorist asked, why if a man runs away in the face of the enemy he is a coward but when a whole army does it, it is a strategic withdrawal? If all torture is never acceptable, why then do we accept it at the macro level and not at the individual level?
We need to look inside and see what others do in our name. Our silence implies consent; perhaps we have already made the case for and abrogated our collective responsibility for the use of torture.
How often have we heard and to be honest, taken refuge in the idea that “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear?”
Only when we are personally confronted face to face with the grim reality — where it would affect us perhaps with a ravaged child to consider — will we ever have to decide on the case for torture.
If in doubt, ask the child.
