Mick Hartley

On the question of torture (via Harry’s Place) this is one of the best responses I’ve seen to that old “ticking bomb” chestnut, from barrister Philippe Sands:

Anyone opposed to torture is always challenged by the “ticking bomb” scenario (is it justifiable to torture a person who has placed a bomb in a school in the hope of gaining information that could save lives?). One can debate whether it is just a nice dilemma for a seminar in moral philosophy or whether it can ever plausibly apply in the real world. Nonetheless, I decided to put it to Sands.

“Could I justify torture in circumstances where a bomb was planted in a school and my children were going to be affected?” he replies. “The easy answer is to say it’s hypothetical and I’m not going to go there. But that’s a cop-out. I think one has to say that ‘never’ means ‘never’. Once you open the door, it cannot be shut. The threshold becomes very difficult to define. Once you accept that there are some circumstances where the deliberate use of force is justified, it is inevitable that the door is open and it will be used again in other circumstances. That door has to be kept shut. I think that’s where I come out … “.

Certainly in such a situation no order should ever be issued to say, “OK, torture the bastard, do whatever you have to, just get the information”. But in real life you’d nevertheless hope that someone would take it upon themselves – acting alone and prepared to take the consequences – to stretch the rules somewhat. Which is to say, the theoretical answer should always be “never”, but individuals as moral agents will make their own judgements according to circumstances, though on the understanding that what they’re doing is illegal. There was an interesting case a while back in Germany, where a policeman was faced with a kidnapper who refused to divulge the whereabouts of the child he was holding ransom. Threat of force soon produced the necessary information and the child was rescued, but the policeman – quite rightly – was prosecuted, despite the fact that his actions may have saved the child’s life.

As to the main point of what Sands has to say:

“In physical terms, of course, it’s not worse than the mass torture that is happening today in many countries of the world. The reason that it’s so important is that the US has always held itself out as doing things differently – and has done things differently. It has been a leader in developing international human rights law and international humanitarian law. If a country like the US opens the door to this type of behaviour in a formal sense, the world has changed. It’s vitally significant.

“I work as a barrister for a large number of governments. I have been told by foreign ministers, I’ve even been told by a president, that – on the basis of the legal advice and the documents that led to the decision of December 2002 – they now see no reason why they can’t do the same thing. It has opened the door to the legitimation of those types of action in foreign countries. And worse, it has made it impossible for the US to say to those countries you can’t do them. So moral authority has gone, and there’s no longer any difference between us and them. We have seen the price Britain and America have paid for that over the past five years. It’s a big price, and it’s going to take a generation to get over it.”

Here, just as one example of the kind of accusation which the US brings on itself, is what they’re seeing on Sudanese TV:

An Al-Jazeera cameraman released from the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay detention center last week described it Monday as the worst prison mankind has ever seen.

Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese citizen, was whisked from his hospital bed in a convoy escorted by police cars with flashing lights and wailing sirens to an outdoor event in his neighborhood organized by his family. His speech was broadcast live on Sudanese television.

“After 2,340 days spent in the most heinous prison mankind has ever known, we are honored to be here. Thank you, and thank all those defended us and of our right in freedom,” he told the cheering crowd.

Al-Haj was the only journalist from a major international news organization held at Guantanamo and many of his supporters saw his detention as punishment for an Arabic television channel whose broadcasts angered U.S. officials.

The U.S. military charged he was a courier for a militant Muslim organization, an allegation his lawyers denied.

We may sneer at the absurdity of that phrase “the worst prison mankind has ever seen”, but thanks to Rumsfeld and his “action memo” of 2002 it’s a viewpoint that’s not as ludicrous as it should be.