Torture Falls into Disrepute in America and Britain

Most people labored under the impression that torture was a thing of the past in the US and UK until quite recently. Then, the war on terror gave Washington and London the pretext to get out the rack and the thumbscrews. While the Irish might have argued that the British government never put them away, and Abner Louima might suggest Brooklyn’s police stations are part of the gulag, the average person was shocked by the pictures out of Abu Ghraib prison. So, the Law Lords and Secretary of State Rice this week announced that torture was, once again, a thing of the past.

Yesterday, the Law Lords (the highest court in Britain) held that evidence secured by torture (translated means “beating a confession out of the bastard”) was inadmissible in British courts. Moreover, the ruling held that it wasn’t just torture committed in Britain by Britons that was affected; any torture derived evidence from anywhere was inadmissible. There is no moment when a lawyer looks more dignified than when he is affirming an inalienable human right in the face of government pressure – silly wigs or not.

As for the Americans, Condoleeza Rice was in Europe explaining to the Germans, Ukrainians and NATO big-shots, “The United States doesn't engage in torture, doesn't condone it, doesn't expect its employees to engage in it.” What is particularly upsetting here is that an American Secretary of State even has to state that. To a great many patriotic Americans, and many non-Americans who rather like the US of A, it shouldn’t ever have been a question. The Bush administration, which so happily called the Geneva Conventions “quaint,” has sullied the reputation of the country with its tough talk, Guantanamo and the “rendering” of terror suspects to nations that will torture.

However, if there is proof now that there are secret prisons in Eastern Europe and other places where torture has occurred, the “few bad apples" defense that let the administration off the hook for Abu Ghraib won’t work. Impeachments and prison sentences will be in order. The case to watch is a suit filed by Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen, against the CIA. He says he was kidnapped while on vacation in Macedonia, taken to Afghanistan and, he claims, was tortured there. Dr. Rice “accepted” that the US had “erroneously taken” him prisoner. This is a case that will get settled long before a trial.

Torture doesn’t work in an intelligence gathering effort. If a crooked cop simply wants to convict someone of something, it’s effective. However, if one wants decent, actionable intelligence, a tortured source will say anything, which has the same value as saying nothing. Vice President Dick “Other Priorities” Cheney is fighting against legislation that would make sure the US doesn’t engage in torture, legislation authored by John “Hanoi Hilton” McCain – a torture survivor who didn’t talk for five years. To paraphrase Congressman Jack Murtha “I like guys who got five deferments and [have] never been there” making policy based on their own lack of experience and inaccurate assumptions. Maybe if more people in the administration had served a full-tour in the military, they wouldn't be so non-chalant about torturing another human being. Then again, it shouldn't take military service to teach someone that it's plain wrong.

© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home