I’m not sure what I’m supposed to make of this piece by Nick Cohen. I read it once and then again, and am still baffled as to what he is trying to say here. Torture is okay? Or torture is okay providing you don’t get caught doing it?
Torture is wrong because… The holding of prisoners of conscience is wrong because… The oppression of women is wrong because… If you finish these sentences with anything other than …because it violates universal human rights, you leave yourself wide open to attack by your opponents.
Um, what about because they are all deeply immoral and reprehensible in a society that aims to call itself civilised?
Although I am sure that Britain is a happier country than Saudi Arabia and that a sensible person would rather live in France than Cuba, the case for basing societies on liberties is not a utilitarian one. Listen to the current debate on rights, however, and you will find that virtually everyone involved pretends that we can enjoy them without paying a price; that a cost-benefit analysis will always show gain without pain.
Are they? Actually, a cost benefit analysis applied to basic civil liberties is somewhat absurd. There is a cost benefit to not torturing people? Or is that there is a benefit to torturing them? What benefit might that be? Sure, there is a risk associated with greater liberty. There is a risk from those who would attack us and undermine it. However, in practice, the greatest risk comes from those who would protect us from the bogeymen, not the terrorists themselves. And, frankly, not torturing someone is a no-brainer, I would have thought…
On the face of it, the Court of Appeal upheld universal human rights when it decided to release a summary of US intelligence that showed American interrogators had shackled Binyam Mohamed, a suspected supporter of the Taliban, and subjected him to sleep deprivation. But a closer examination shows that the judges did not say that Mohamed was entitled to evidence that supported his allegation that MI5 was complicit in his mistreatment, regardless of the consequences for the relationship between the British and US intelligence services.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see a problem here. If he was tortured, which he shouldn’t have been, and MI5 were complicit, then he damned well should have access to that evidence and MI5 should be publicly hauled over the coals for it – whatever the fallout. We, as a civilised society, should have no truck with torture. Not negotiable. That we have been is a fucking disgrace, frankly. And I don’t care one jot if the Obama administration is disappointed – go and be fucking disappointed. I’m disappointed that a so-called civilised society – an ally – is involved in such barbaric and medieval behaviour.
Instead, they comforted themselves with the Pollyannaish notion that there could be no bad consequences for the espionage agencies. David Miliband warned them that intelligence sharing between the two countries would suffer if they ordered the publication of information given in confidence by an ally.
Tough shit, frankly.
No sooner had he ruled than a “deeply disappointed” Obama White House objected most forcibly. “As we warned, the court’s judgment will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-sharing relationship with the UK, and it will have to factor into our decision-making going forward.”
Tough shit. Get over yourselves. You tortured a man and he took you to court. Quite rightly. Don’t like it? Well, how about not torturing people, then?
Writers on torture insist that it “does not work”, as if the argument against torture depended on its efficacy, and as if the case for torture could be made if a torturer proved in an experiment on unwilling victims that it could be remarkably persuasive.
No. That torture does not work is a factual point that undermines its use and is a point worth making. Evidence gained under torture is tainted and unreliable – quite apart from the humanitarian issues.
Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, added a further complication when he said that the Mohamed ruling provided a propaganda victory for our enemies.
No. Torturing people did that.
But therein lies the problem. Most of the British do not behave as if they are at war. Every third-rate political pundit has ruled that we cannot say that we are in a “war on terror”. Meanwhile, politicians will not allow us to say that we are in a “war against radical Islam” because they have to pretend that religion does not motivate religious extremists.
That’s because we are not at war. A few – largely incompetent – islamists have tried to blow themselves up, leading to less than a hundred deaths on the UK mainland. This is not a war. This does not justify a reduction in civil liberties. This does not justify torture and it does not justify covering up torture – and if people think that this may hand a propaganda coup to those who would do us harm, than they should have thought about that before they decided to torture their captives.
Anyway, reading the comments, it seems I’m not the only one who finds Cohen’s arguments confusing.