UK allegedly complicit to torture...

[Lucio]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-un?CMP=AFCYAH


Reading this story makes me think, is it ever acceptable to sidestep your moral code to ensure the safety of the majority? It's a difficult ethical question to decide, because failing to act or by limiting the actions of the security services may lead to many more deaths of people who've done nothing personally to deserve it.


Perhaps the biggest problem is that we try to hide and deny what happens? Would torture be more acceptable if it was done openly, with oversights and safeguards such as medical staff on hand? All in all I find this very thought provoking and i'm curious to find out what others think.

[scaryjim]

Is torture ever right or acceptable? No. No-one has the right to hurt someone else, for any reason. If we deviate from that, then we are giving terrorists, and frankly any random wierdo, implicit justification to do anything they want to. If we do it, why shouldn't they?

Are we implicit in torture overseas? Almost certainly. In fact, I'd say we are explicitly involved in it through our use of these proxy detention arangements, as many involve regimes that are known to condone torture themselves. But frankly, if the government supports trading with a country that practices torture, political imprisonment, or the death sentence they are implicitly supporting those practices. Is that too extreme a viewpoint? We used to levy sanctions against countries who did things we dissapproved of (South Africa / Apartheid, for instance), so if we don't levy sanctions surely that means we approve of those practices!?

[TooNice]

One of the problem I can think of if you allow it is that it'll make it harder for the UK to claim the moral high ground. Let's say another country make frequent use of torture and the UK/US/other developed countries decides to tell them 'You shouldn't do that'. In all likelihood, country X will just turn around and say 'You bunch of hypocrites'. The methods used may be different, as is the level of safeguard (perhaps none in country X, which frequently leads to fatalities) and perceived level of cruelty. Yet I still think your credibility will take a dive as soon as you walk on that slippery slope.

Now in fairness, country Xs probably give the finger already whenever they are criticised. Some may even say that we should sort ourselves first before worrying about what others do. That's another debate.

My take is that if you decide to take someone in captivity, you owe it to them to compensate for damage suffered if they turned out to be innocent at the very least.

[Singh400]

Would torture be more acceptable if it was done openly, with oversights and safeguards such as medical staff on hand?

Simple put no. Under torture, anyone would confess to anything just to stop the torture.

It has been proven unreliable (or so I read) lots of time. You just can't rely on anything anyone says under torture at all. So much so that I am pretty sure it isn't allowed in court as evidence.

It wouldn't surprise me if the UK goverment was unofficially condoning torture

[Brucelles]

Merde. I spent so long typing that the stupid system logged me out and I lost it.

Not going to do that again.

Torture bad. No excuses.

The old biblical line 'Do as you would be done by' is pretty good advice in this case.

[Saracen]

Well, that article strikes me as rather loaded. For a start, it points out that the authorities have to properly investigate

The UN report contains warnings that inquiries into these two cases may not be sufficient to meet the UK's obligations under international law, however, saying that the British government and other states would face claims of responsibility "when the state received claims that someone had been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment, or an enforced disappearance, or otherwise received information suggesting that such acts may have taken place but failed to have the claims impartially investigated".

The UN report adds: "According to the European court, authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions."

... and then seems to suggest that investigating lends credence to the allegations ...

Despite the FO's assertion that there is no evidence to support the UN's allegations, the attorney general has asked Scotland Yard detectives to investigate a number of cases.

Why say "despite" assertions that there is no evidence having just finished saying investigations were inadequate. Do they want proper investigations or not?

I find that whole article loaded. It's not what they say so much as the way they say it, and the note on which they chose to conclude. It doesn't strike me as impartial journalism, but as having a muck-raking agenda. And it doesn't leave me any wiser as to whether there is muck to rake or not, though I'd be frankly astonished if it was all smoke with no fire at all. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if government agencies weren't prepared to take advantage of information, such as it may be, gained from torture. If a "notorious" Pakistani intelligence agency told British Intelligence that several individuals were planning to bomb the London Underground on a given date, would we expect those agencies to say "oh, well we'll ignore that as you got it by torture", or would you expect them to follow it up?

Personally, I sure as hell expect them to follow it up, because if they don't and the intelligence was accurate, we wind up with carnage on the underground ... again. And, as a matter of self-evident truth, we don't know how many plots have been foiled (though reports suggest quite a few) ..... or how they did it.

This is, however, not the same as condoning torture, but it's a fine line.

As for whether it's ever justified .... well, that depends on the answers to a couple of questions, most notably, can you get sound intel that way? And I have no idea if you can.

But let's suppose a "terrorist" walks into a UK police station and declares he's got a nuke planted in a UK city and it's going to detonate on a timer? Are we justified in torturing him? No, IMHO.

But then suppose he gives you details of the design of the device. Suppose he tells you where it was made, and Geiger counters detect radiation in the factory. Suppose he tells you where he got critical components like triggers, and perhaps produces one as a sample. In other words, suppose he has thoroughly convincing evidence that the device is real, exists and is a very imminent threat, and that he's not just a delusional nutcase?

And then he refuses to tell you even which city it is in.

So .... if you believe you can get information that will perhaps save millions of lives and the only way to get it, at least in time, is torture, do we do it?

Well, personally, I would hate it, and probably have nightmares about it, but if I think it's the only way to perhaps save hundreds of thousands (or more) lives, and it were my decision, then I'd sign the authority. And I'd sign it even if I thought it was only a chance to save those lives. Because I would not be prepared to risk the horrific price of standing on my principles when I could perhaps save all those lives.

Clearly, I've set up an extremely artificial and very unlikely scenario that distinctly lacks any credibility of ever happening in the real world. But I do so to illustrate that, IMHO, it is not the case that it is never justified.

That, however, is a very long waty from saying it's justifiable as a matter of course.

But it begs a difficult moral question ... if I would do it to save a million lives, what about 100,000? What about 1000? What about 100? How about 10?

I'm sure a lot of people will argue that that is precisely why it's never right. And I agree .... in theory. But if it's me, and I declined to try to save a million lives even at the cost of torturing one, and the bomb subsequently killed that million, then THAT is a price I couldn't accept as being worth paying.

Moral dilemmas are called dilemmas for a reason. If they were easy to answer, they wouldn't be dilemmas.

And for those that wouldn't condone torture if they believed it had a credible chance to save a million lives, well, I admire your moral fortitude and I also hope like hell you're never the one making that decision, for the sake of the million. For that matter, I hope like hell I'm never the one faced with that decision either, and I don't envy those that are.

[Brucelles]

I am strong on ethics. I believe in the 'fruit of a poisonous tree' argument.

When I was at university we were taught about the ethical dilemma of Mengele's Noma experiments in Auschwitz. It is still not known what causes the disease of noma, and it is possible that Mengele's research could illuminate the issue, as the things he did are so unethical as to be unrepeatable, so his findings are unique. However we never use his research, because it is the fruit of a poisoned tree.

Those medical ethics specialists who looked at this example don't believe that it is ever justifiable to use unethical research, so that there is never any temptation to set even a toe on that slippery slope.

The same principle should apply to torture. I know two men who were tortured and they both said the same thing, they told all they knew, which wasn't much, and then made stuff up. In order to get that crappy and misleading information their interrogators put their country onto the list of those countries no-one wants to visit, and became the sort of government that the people will depose when they get the chance.

[Brucelles]

and I think you can now strike the word 'allegedly' from the title.

MI5 did not operate in a culture that respected human rights or renounced "coercive interrogation techniques".

So there we are. MI5 does indeed torture or at least get involved in the proceeds of it. Binyam Mohamed's story is credible, and I believe that MI5 officers were prompting the torturer with the questions they wanted put. Charming. This could be you, one day.

[TheAnimus]

This could be you, one day.

Well thankfully at the moment I don't fit the profile!

It is a bit worrying but at the same time we'd be up in arms if the information this sort of thing can potentially bring was ever denied to us.

Its very hard to make informed decisions on the merits of it, without a lot more information than I think we would ever be willing to disclose, we know that torture has provided useful information in the far past.

[scaryjim]

... for those that wouldn't condone torture if they believed it had a credible chance to save a million lives, well, I admire your moral fortitude and I also hope like hell you're never the one making that decision, ...

There are reasons why, despite my constant moaning about how much I dislike my job, I'm still doing it. The regular lack of having to make decisions affecting the lives of millions of people is just one if its advantages

[Lucio]

IThe same principle should apply to torture. I know two men who were tortured and they both said the same thing, they told all they knew, which wasn't much, and then made stuff up. ....

TBH that's actually more of a reason why you shouldn't use torture, it's not actually that effective in getting the information you want.