By charonqc
It is not difficult to imagine a pub conversation where all parties agree that it is perfectly acceptable to torture and commit atrocities against those who would do us harm. I suspect there are internet forums which specialise in exactly this type of rhetoric and, judging by comments I have seen in recent months on The Sun and the Daily Mail websites, there is quite a lot of support for torturing people, hanging them and, indeed, letting ‘our boys hunt them down like dogs’.
It would not surprise me, given the Right’s enthusiasm in days gone by for the death penalty, if some in high places, in parliament and elsewhere, do not ‘secretly’ hold these views.
The issue is perfectly straightforward – (a) do we adhere to an international law which prohibits the use of torture? (b) do we want to be a society that fights, but fights as fairly as the heat of warfare allows within the laws of warfare? and (c) are we prepared to do this, when all about us, others – do not wish to subscribe to such a high ethic?
David Cameron must not compromise on torture
Guardian: The coalition should wait for the results of the torture inquiry before proposing legislation that bows to transatlantic pressure
Clive Stafford-Smith, Director of Reprieve, writes in the Guardian today. It is worth reading. I make no comment. Mr Stafford-Smith is eloquent.
Government to compensate torture victims as official inquiry launched
Guardian: “PM moves to ensure courts will no longer be able to disclose evidence about British complicity in torture. David Cameron today ordered an unprecedented inquiry into evidence and allegations of British complicity in the torture and abuse of terror suspects. But he immediately moved to ensure the courts would no longer be able to disclose damning evidence which, he implied, could jeopardise intelligence sharing with the US.”
This is good news as to the first part – even if we have the rather curious business of current cases against the British government being ‘settled’ before Sir Peter Gibson begins his Inquiry. It is also good news that there is a judge leading it. The questioning should, one hopes, be rather sharper than the demonstration we saw given at The Chilcott Iraq Inquiry. The argument that it will be cheaper to settle rather indicates that Cameron expects the security services to have benefitted from torture. It can’t all be cost cutting…can it? No admissions will be made, of course, in any ‘settlement’. Pragmatism may win out here but at least the government is doing something to clear this up. Of course – it is possible that our security services are clean and are, indeed, doing good work without breaking rules indirectly. That would be a boon and morale boost to the war on terror.
What is not such good news is the idea of promulgating legislation to stop judges disclosing evidence of British complicity in torture. Assuming that Britain chooses the moral high ground option and is prepared to pay more than lip service to international law, I would have thought that if we are doing it, the judges should reveal this. it is, of course, a nod to our American cousins who, it would seem from past events, have a nice line in water boarding, and other subtle tortures which we may be found to have benefitted from.
The discussion is important and, I would suggest, so are the answers to the three questions I suggested above. Your views, as ever, are very welcome. I know which side of the debate I am on – but I do not prescribe for others….
It is not difficult to imagine a pub conversation where all parties agree that it is perfectly acceptable to torture and commit atrocities against those who would do us harm. I suspect there are internet forums which specialise in exactly this type of rhetoric and, judging by comments I have seen in recent months on The Sun and the Daily Mail websites, there is quite a lot of support for torturing people, hanging them and, indeed, letting ‘our boys hunt them down like dogs’.
It would not surprise me, given the Right’s enthusiasm in days gone by for the death penalty, if some in high places, in parliament and elsewhere, do not ‘secretly’ hold these views.
The issue is perfectly straightforward – (a) do we adhere to an international law which prohibits the use of torture? (b) do we want to be a society that fights, but fights as fairly as the heat of warfare allows within the laws of warfare? and (c) are we prepared to do this, when all about us, others – do not wish to subscribe to such a high ethic?
David Cameron must not compromise on torture
Guardian: The coalition should wait for the results of the torture inquiry before proposing legislation that bows to transatlantic pressure
Clive Stafford-Smith, Director of Reprieve, writes in the Guardian today. It is worth reading. I make no comment. Mr Stafford-Smith is eloquent.
Government to compensate torture victims as official inquiry launched
Guardian: “PM moves to ensure courts will no longer be able to disclose evidence about British complicity in torture. David Cameron today ordered an unprecedented inquiry into evidence and allegations of British complicity in the torture and abuse of terror suspects. But he immediately moved to ensure the courts would no longer be able to disclose damning evidence which, he implied, could jeopardise intelligence sharing with the US.”
This is good news as to the first part – even if we have the rather curious business of current cases against the British government being ‘settled’ before Sir Peter Gibson begins his Inquiry. It is also good news that there is a judge leading it. The questioning should, one hopes, be rather sharper than the demonstration we saw given at The Chilcott Iraq Inquiry. The argument that it will be cheaper to settle rather indicates that Cameron expects the security services to have benefitted from torture. It can’t all be cost cutting…can it? No admissions will be made, of course, in any ‘settlement’. Pragmatism may win out here but at least the government is doing something to clear this up. Of course – it is possible that our security services are clean and are, indeed, doing good work without breaking rules indirectly. That would be a boon and morale boost to the war on terror.
What is not such good news is the idea of promulgating legislation to stop judges disclosing evidence of British complicity in torture. Assuming that Britain chooses the moral high ground option and is prepared to pay more than lip service to international law, I would have thought that if we are doing it, the judges should reveal this. it is, of course, a nod to our American cousins who, it would seem from past events, have a nice line in water boarding, and other subtle tortures which we may be found to have benefitted from.
The discussion is important and, I would suggest, so are the answers to the three questions I suggested above. Your views, as ever, are very welcome. I know which side of the debate I am on – but I do not prescribe for others….
Comments