A new survey has just been published regarding peoples opinions on the use of torture, with some interesting results. It seems that the world’s policemen are not averse to using torture on other people even though its own constitution prohibits its use. In fact the US justice system considers evidence obtained through the use of torture or even coercion as tainted to the extent that it is not to be used as evidence. However, the new legislation recently passed in the US covering “enemy combatants” allows the use of evidence obtained by coercion in their trials. Interesting stance for people who stand in judgment on other countries violation of human rights, to the extent that they have imposed sanctions on countries who have engaged in the very behaviour which they themselves have been shown to be guilty of.
“We need to use torture to prevent loss of innocent life”, I hear you say. Or “torture is justified when it comes to preventing terrorism or in defeating terrorism”. These are interesting arguments but I feel rather emotive and open to serious question.
One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. There have been many acts by the current moral guardians of the world that fall squarely inside the definition of terrorist act, yet they themselves deny that they were terrorist acts. It seems that a terrorist act is one which I say is a terrorist act. So there is a great deal of doubt in my mind that there is a clearly defined definition of terrorism. Don’t get me wrong – I am not saying that the suicide bombers, or such like are not terrorists but we need to be extremely careful that we do not use such an ill defined and variably defined word to justify the indefensible.
Secondly it flies in the face of the principle of the presumption of innocence. By the use of torture we are presuming the person’s guilt before justice has taken its course. We are in fact dealing out punishment to the innocent. If, for instance, the question was wether that person could see a situation where it would be necessary to torture them then I suspect the result would be entirely different. It is fine to do it to some faceless theoretical terrorist but don’t ever do it to me.
Thirdly, it is like the proverbial fishing expedition, giving the state carte blanch to torture at their whim on the most feeble of evidence. In this country there has been the new legislation which gives the police the power to arrest without charge. Not only that, it is illegal in such cases to pass onto anybody information regarding that person’s arrest. They are without representation, without scrutiny, held incommunicado with no possibility of the application of natural justice. Habeas corpus is a nonsense. Now if you then couple this gross violation of human rights with torture it moves from the unjust to the heinous. People can be kept without charge, without recourse to the justice system and representation and able to be tortured, merely on a whim.
This scenario reminds me of a certain European country in the 1930s; that too was a democracy.