What did Bagaric and Clarke start? All the torture advocates are coming out of the woodwork now, the latest being former NCA head Peter Faris QC:
Mr Faris said it would be acceptable to use torture in criminal investigations.
“A psychopathic murderer has buried a teenage girl alive and he is captured by the police,” an example on Mr Faris’s web blog says.
“He refuses to say where she is. He taunts the police with his knowledge. Torture is acceptable to find the girl and to save her life.”
The example was taken from the film Dirty Harry, Mr Faris said.
Well, that’s a realistic scenario.
So now we have serious debate in this country from people arguing beyond the terrorist examples to the use of torture in criminal investigations:
But the Crime Victims Support Association said police should be able to torture criminals if they were certain they had information about other crimes.
“Anyone who is a serious offender like that, they [the police] should have the right to do it,” said association president Noel McNamara.
Faris has some legislative ideas:
He said there were no guarantees that torture would work - “if you don’t get the information, you don’t get the information”.
However, “to pull out a fingernail of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives” was morally right, he told AAP.
“I’m not saying `let’s legislate immediately’,” Mr Faris said.
“What I’m trying to establish is that this is a legitimate issue to be on the table for debate… but people start saying you’re a Nazi because you want to debate it.”
Mr Faris said legislating for torture was not an ideal situation, and standards of acceptable torture, including “the reasonable application of pain”, would have to be set if it were to be used.
Fortunately there are some lawyers against torture:
The Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Lex Lasry, QC, today rejected Mr Faris’ attempt to open debate into the use of torture in criminal investigations.
“Mr Faris’ suggestion that the use of torture could arguably be an acceptable tool in the investigation of some serious crimes, based on the film Dirty Harry, is bizarre and we, of course, reject it,” Mr Lasry said.
“There are a number of important issues affecting the criminal justice system being debated at present without being diverted by some ludicrous concept of introducing legalised torture by police as an investigative technique.”
Postmodernity or premodernity? Pick the difference.
Talk to the QC: Should you wish to do so, you can comment on Mr Faris’ blog. His blogroll contains the usual RWDB suspects - might be worth watching to see if any jump on his bandwagon.
Elsewhere: Graham Young picks up on the Bond fantasy element of these tortuous desires at Ambit Gambit, while David Tiley is disgusted at Barista, and Tim Dunlop comments on Faris’ comments sensitivities.
Lordy. I’m moving back to America. Well, maybe not back to California, where a campaign for a particularly vile anti-gay ballot initiative is starting. It’ll be a big test for the Governator.
Seriously, what shreds of human rights credibility does Australia have left?
Anyone want to take bets on the first obscure or prominent Coalition MP to discover torture is a great idea?
mmmmm…
A worry that some of the participants to this debate are losing sight of the in extremis arguments put by Bagaric and Clarke. Torture as a routine interrogative technique cannot be justified.
Why do we even bother with courts, law and presumption of innocence, if people are going to be punnished (ie tortured) before a conviction is recorded?
Methinks some people are confusing normal police hard-wording and bombastic threats with actually sticking needles under people’s finger nails.
A good follow up question to put to faris et al would be “And what compensation structure do you have for those wrongly or inappropriately tortured?”
What the hell is happening to my country?
Yes Alex - precisely. Its a wonder it sprang from legal academics - as the proposals advanced must ultiamtely undermine the key democratic principle of the rule of law.
As any evidence gathered from torture is unlikely to be admissible in a court, the ability to successfully prosecute suspects is totally compromised. But do we release them? No, not if there’s evidence. Thus, A slippery slope to Guantanamo-style detention without charge follows logically. Fundamental legal principles of habeas corpus are eroded; the rule of law replaced by arbitrary and unreviewable imprisonment on executive order. This seems an untenable position for two law academics to hold. Indeed, they do not seem to have thought this issue through to its logical, authoritarian conclusion.
China, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Eqypt etc will be loving this debate in the West. They’re just waiting for some Western country to pick up on this legislatvely - even in the most remote, extreme circumstance - to justify their own practices of torture. I can see the test now “where it is in the greater good, and collective interests of the people, as embodied by current state policy”. Same logic - a gross sort of ultilitarianism with no regard for the wider impact on individual rights. Thje ultimate triumph of information over justice. Bagaric and Faris should get an award for services to authoritarianism.
Excellent comment by Aussie Bob at Faris’ site.
You’ve gotta wonder why a QC who is well aquainted with the idea of precedent and can bring related cases to bear on any particular case they are fighting doesn’t actually bring any such real cases to bear.
He seems to spend most of his time blogging and doing a radio show, Harry. Maybe he’s one of Rumpole’s briefless barristers?
“A worry that some of the participants to this debate are losing sight of the in extremis arguments put by Bagaric and Clarke. Torture as a routine interrogative technique cannot be justified.”
Agreed.
‘A worry that some of the participants to this debate are losing sight of the in extremis arguments put by Bagaric and Clarke.’
Yes. They seem to forget that our legal system as it stands today can quite easily deal with such as case, as it does in cases of aggrivated killings.
For instance, have a look at the 44 year old woman who stabbed her 70+ year old mum 48 times; ample proof that we don’t need a special law for when people snap after years of constant nagging. The constant nagging is taken into account during the trial.
harry, you’ll be surprised to know that I posted a comment over at Troppo saying much the same thing earlier in the day. Amity and concord - gosh, what is the sphere coming to?
Imagine you are on a desert island. The whole world speaks Urdu - and there is an Urdu speaker with you on the desert island. There is a plane flying overhead with a pilot in it who speaks Urdu. A girl has been buryed alive and is suffocating. She doesn’t speak Urdu. There is a helicopter, but it doesn’t have any petrol. And there’s a plastic pipe which can be used either to help the buried girl breathe or to funnel petrol into a fire to make a sign (in Urdu) to the plane flying overhead.
Now - although there are some so called people who would turn up their noses - I think in this situation, it is pretty obvious that someone should be tortured. Of course you could argue that we might torture the wrong person, but pretty evidently the whole island’s future depends on your torturing someone. I guess you just have to hope you’ve tortured the right person. But if you do torture the wrong person, don’t kid yourself that Al Quaeda has these kind of scruples. My goodness me no.
Thanks for clearing that up Nic. What’s Urdu for “huh”?
Nicholas, have you not listened to the whole thread of this debate? Morality aside, ALL the experts–FBI, CIA, etc etc say torture doesn’t work as an information extracting device.
Look, I don’t know if you’re just havin a larf, here (”My goodness me no”).
Look, I don‚Äôt know if you‚Äôre just havin a larf, here (”My goodness me no”).
I must confess I’m wondering too. Either that or it’s one of those thought experiments that make me feel really dumb because I can’t work it out!
Actually, Mark, I’ve worked it out. Nicholas Guren is just what The Guardian’s George Monbiot calls viral marketing. (See http://www.monbiot.com/) Click Nicholas Guren’s name & you’ll get an advert for Peach Home Loans Discount Mortgage Brokers.
Hey Selwyn - no, Nicholas is a good friend of ours. A blogger at my old digs Troppo and a distinguished economist. He does run a home loans business as well as a consultancy and is a visiting Fellow at ANU. Also a columnist for the Courier-Mail.
Is he havin a larf, then?
100% sure he is. I know Nicholas feels strongly about human rights issues and refugees for instance.
Jeez, that’s a relief! Thought we had a nutter on our hands. Still, I recommend George Monbiot’s website…