Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Zero Tolerance for Torture
Over the past two days, Ian Cobain has continued his excellent expose of British complicity in torture in the Guardian. By now, few can doubt that in the eight years since 9/11 the British government has taken some steps that were illegal, others that were indubitably immoral and many more that were unwise.
The apologists for torture constantly propagate their myths to justify their nightmare. If it is not a ticking timebomb in Trafalgar Square, then it is the notion that torture-induced intelligence might thwart another 7/7. No official ever produces evidence that might corral these hypotheticals within the realm of reality - we are left only with the dark assurances of Dick Cheney. (My own experience with classified evidence convinces me that Cheney is straying some distance from the truth.)
Even if there were proof that torture sometimes saved lives, that would hardly win the debate, on either a moral or a utilitarian analysis. Overall, can anyone doubt that the west has been made less safe by our leaders' dabbling in torture and abuse? For example, can anyone honestly gainsay the opinion of an anonymous CIA agent - that for each prisoner mistreated in Guantánamo Bay, we have provoked 10 angry men who wish us harm?
And the ripples of torture taint all those who come in contact with it. As our own investigation continues at Reprieve into the torture of Binyam Mohamed, it becomes clear that the British intelligence services have used many unwitting agents in their own felonies. For example, the Metropolitan police were asked to dig out the information that was fed to Mohamed's Moroccan torturers.
I wonder, though, whether it is not time we began to consider a different question: what positive steps will our government take to renounce the terror of torture? I, for one, don't much care if British officials are ever prosecuted for torture; but I do very much want to contribute to a world where nobody suffers in the torture chamber again.
Pious government assurances that British agents never torture are not enough - for Marwan, the leader of Mohamed's Moroccan abusers, did not handle the razor blade; he stood back and observed.
An official promise that British agents will report back to their superiors when they witness torture is insufficient: the British government knew about Mohamed's torture, did nothing to stop it and continues to suppress the evidence.
There is only one solution: if our politicians promise zero tolerance for drugs or for racism on the football terrace, surely they can accept zero tolerance for torture? Where we see it, we must stop it; where we suspect it, we must investigate it; and where we believe it has happened, we must ensure that the abusers are exposed. If we are to avoid its deadly fruit, the poisoned tree must be torn out by its roots.
- Posted in
7 Comments so far
Show AllI'm not a Brit, but seems to me Blair should hang next to Bush.
godistwaddle - but let's not stop there, how about adding Cheney, Wolfowitz, the Prince of Darkness Perle, Eric Prince, Rumsfield et al to the party? Any others that need adding? How about that charmer Bolton?
Personally I'm against capital punishment so the hanging should be by the toes with an accompaniment of tar and feathers I think. For those who support torture and think it works for anything other than forcing confessions, perhaps the blindfold, blank cartridges fired and a simultaneous catapult of a solid rubber ball to the chest might be both enlightening and safe for them.
Having read Mr. Smith's Eight O'Clock Ferry to the Windward Side, and knowing of the work he's done, I have the utmost of respect for him. However, I wonder about his statement that he doesn't care whether or not officials are prosecuted for torture. After all, what better way to get governments to "renounce the terror of torture" than to prosecute, convict, and punish those who gave the orders to torture?
Yes, I had exactly the same thought.
Not being privy to Mr. Smith's innermost thoughts on the question, I can only guess as to the reasons for this disclaimer.
FWIW, my edumacated guess is that they feel that openly, not to say vehemently, calling for individual prosecutions will be misunderstood, criticized, and denounced as vindictive and petty.
It's similar to the phobia against impeaching malfeasant presidents. The self-evident truth that the effectiveness of the rule of law relies on consistent enforcement of laws without fear or favor, and the corollary truth that the absence of will and courage to hold wrongdoers accountable removes the law's power of deterrence are overwhelmed by so-called practical constraints.
And I don't dispute that there IS a vast rampart-- a Hideous Strength-- of ignorance, complacency, entrenched opposition, and lazy pragmatism that daunts common sense and common decency. The very SHADOW of that Hideous Strength compels public figures to seek a prudent path around it rather than attempt the folly of opposing it openly.
Again, I'm not clear on why Mr. Smith takes this position, but it seems to me that the reluctance to advocate bringing government officials to justice is pragmatic-- a term that's becoming more pejorative by the day. Presumably he believes that the combination of public inertia and official opposition would form a quagmire that would ultimately paralyze and swallow attempts to achieve justice.
It's plainly the case that persons like Mr. Smith possess integrity and determination that precludes easy labels like "cynic" or "defeatist". Yet I can't help but think that their demurrals are self-serving, to the extent that they wish to be insulated from smears that they are vengeful and vindictive "purists".
They sidestep, rather than rebut, the premise that a system of justice is only as good as the willingness to commit to it, for better or worse. In my view, declining to do more than generally identify and criticize illicit and criminal behavior by government agents is a guarantee that such behavior will persist.
Decrying the thousands and thousands of illicit and extra-legal atrocities committed, authorized, or tacitly tolerated by government authorities and agents is empty mewling if there are no adverse consequences for such horrific behavior.
Surely Mr. Smith can't expect that the amoral and utterly ruthless sociopaths who propagate institutional crime will be SHAMED into returning to the rule of law.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"It's plainly the case that persons like Mr. Smith possess integrity and determination that precludes easy labels like "cynic" or "defeatist". Yet I can't help but think that their demurrals are self-serving, to the extent that they wish to be insulated from smears that they are vengeful and vindictive "purists"."
Clive Stafford Smith is already smeared in the UK, with much more nasty smears than just being "vengeful" or being a "purists".
Zero tolerance for torture, but he doesn't much care if those responsible are ever prosecuted?!
Seems like a very strange form of "zero tolerance" where transgressions are just ignored and have no consquences for the guilty parties. But, sadly, it also seems typical of current attitudes toward crimes that are perpetrated under cover of imperial sanction and/or "just following orders."
So-called "civilization" appears to be progressing nicely in the direction ordained by its masters and their "corporate ethics" (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
Smith asks: "For example, can anyone honestly gainsay the opinion of an anonymous CIA agent - that for each prisoner mistreated in Guantánamo Bay, we have provoked 10 angry men who wish us harm?"
This was part of the plan - Rumsfeld declared from the start that they would provoke and lure the "terrorists" out into the open.
Using the public as bait.