The blogosphere is aflame this morning with discussion of a paper by two Australian academics which seeks to justify torture. John Quiggin, Tim Dunlop, Ken Parish and Robert Merkel have all ably refuted the arguments proposed by these legal academics, so I won’t have a go myself. However, I do want to point out that torture is much more effective as a form of social control through the creation of fear than as an interrogation method, as Naomi Klein argues:
The fear is even thicker among Muslims in the United States, where the Patriot Act gives police the power to seize the records of any mosque, school, library or community group on mere suspicion of terrorist links. When this intense surveillance is paired with the ever-present threat of torture, the message is clear: You are being watched, your neighbor may be a spy, the government can find out anything about you. If you misstep, you could disappear onto a plane bound for Syria, or into “the deep dark hole that is Guant√°namo Bay,” to borrow a phrase from Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. But this fear has to be finely calibrated. The people being intimidated need to know enough to be afraid but not so much that they demand justice. This helps explain why the Defense Department will release certain kinds of seemingly incriminating information about Guantanamo — pictures of men in cages, for instance — at the same time that it acts to suppress photographs on a par with what escaped from Abu Ghraib. And it might also explain why the Pentagon approved the new book by a former military translator, including the passages about prisoners being sexually humiliated, but prevented him from writing about the widespread use of attack dogs. This strategic leaking of information, combined with official denials, induces a state of mind that Argentines describe as “knowing/not knowing,” a vestige of their “dirty war.”
Not too dissimilar to the fear that’s now spreading through ethnic communities in Australia that if they don’t have a passport with them they may be deported, but much more insidious and calculated.
It’s massively ironic that the Deakin Law Professor who’s co-author of the article describes it as a contribution to human rights law. Torture is abhorrent in all circumstances everywhere, no matter what alleged gain in information can result from its practice.
Update: The authors of the paper summarise their arguments in the SMH.
Professor Bagaric said he was not an authority on torture methods, but also said the preferred form of torture should be sticking needles under people’s fingernails to cause excruciating pain.
Elsewhere: More commentary and discussion at Liam’s place and Catallaxy.
Torture, like the death penalty, is something that should be opposed outright, whether it’s done summarily or with the full backing of the law.
Still, it’s telling that the people who actually support torture and have the power to use it—the Cheneys of the world—are too cowardly actually to make similar arguments. If anyone supports torture as a means in the so-called ‘war on terror’, they should have the spine to argue for a legal, controllable, state-sanctioned form of it.
Torture, like the death penalty, is something that should be opposed outright, whether it’s done summarily or with the full backing of the law.
Still, it’s telling that the people who actually support torture and have the power to use it—the Cheneys of the world—are too cowardly actually to make similar arguments. If anyone supports torture as a means in the so-called ‘war on terror’, they should have the spine to argue for a legal, controllable, state-sanctioned form of it.
Mark,
The point is that torture must be discussed but also more reasonably interrogation must also be discussed. All of the issues must be discussed but as usual the usual culprits are saying no discussion we are in control of all thought on these issues. Torture even amongst those who sometimes have to use harsh interrogation techniques is considered a high risk little return tactic. Depends on the definition of torture, in most cases from the left, they even consider incarceration of mass murderers mostly wrong.
But as usual don’t discuss it, bang the humanity drum, it’s bad but no discussion on how to get the information necessary. Personally I welcome the discussion and also I welcome the attempt to get the whole thing into an international legal forum. Perhaps everyone’s position needs peer review.
I don’t have the answers but I’d also suggest the entire legal fraternity doesn’t either.
Mark,
The point is that torture must be discussed but also more reasonably interrogation must also be discussed. All of the issues must be discussed but as usual the usual culprits are saying no discussion we are in control of all thought on these issues. Torture even amongst those who sometimes have to use harsh interrogation techniques is considered a high risk little return tactic. Depends on the definition of torture, in most cases from the left, they even consider incarceration of mass murderers mostly wrong.
But as usual don’t discuss it, bang the humanity drum, it’s bad but no discussion on how to get the information necessary. Personally I welcome the discussion and also I welcome the attempt to get the whole thing into an international legal forum. Perhaps everyone’s position needs peer review.
I don’t have the answers but I’d also suggest the entire legal fraternity doesn’t either.
[the 'left' collectively yawns, dodges cheap shot]
Try this definition of torture: any treatment you’d not be willing to undergo yourself, as a prisoner of a regime with which you came into conflict.
[the 'left' collectively yawns, dodges cheap shot]
Try this definition of torture: any treatment you’d not be willing to undergo yourself, as a prisoner of a regime with which you came into conflict.
John – who’s saying it shouldn’t be discussed? The posts I link to discuss it and refute the arguments put forward. Saying it should be condemned is hardly the same as saying it shouldn’t be discussed.
John – who’s saying it shouldn’t be discussed? The posts I link to discuss it and refute the arguments put forward. Saying it should be condemned is hardly the same as saying it shouldn’t be discussed.
I always thought Michael Walzer’s ideas (http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/michaelwalzerinterview.html) about torture were quite interesting. He argues that torture is wrong, and pretty much no-one disagrees with that.
So, if you find yourself in an emergency situation where there’s a nuclear bomb, and it’s going to kill a lot of people, blah blah, then you may decide that you will torture a possible informant. Not because you’re guaranteed a result, but because it’s an emergency, and you feel you have to try something, and it’s the only source of information you have…
But just because you decide to choose a lesser evil, doesn’t mean your actions suddenly become “right”: it’s still wrong, and you should still be punished.
The same logic as with conscientious objectors who go to prison instead of going to war, I guess, as opposed to those who just escape to Canada.
I always thought Michael Walzer’s ideas (http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/michaelwalzerinterview.html) about torture were quite interesting. He argues that torture is wrong, and pretty much no-one disagrees with that.
So, if you find yourself in an emergency situation where there’s a nuclear bomb, and it’s going to kill a lot of people, blah blah, then you may decide that you will torture a possible informant. Not because you’re guaranteed a result, but because it’s an emergency, and you feel you have to try something, and it’s the only source of information you have…
But just because you decide to choose a lesser evil, doesn’t mean your actions suddenly become “right”: it’s still wrong, and you should still be punished.
The same logic as with conscientious objectors who go to prison instead of going to war, I guess, as opposed to those who just escape to Canada.
But you’re not discussing the ethics of torture in your post, Mark.
You’re using the topic as an excuse to launch into a paranoid rant about the regime of fear you imagine is sweeping the US and Australia.
Tim Dunlop doesn’t discuss the issue. He just uses it as an excuse to smear the right generally.
Robert Merkel and Ken Parish actually discuss the issue.
I don’t know what Quiggin says.
But you’re not discussing the ethics of torture in your post, Mark.
You’re using the topic as an excuse to launch into a paranoid rant about the regime of fear you imagine is sweeping the US and Australia.
Tim Dunlop doesn’t discuss the issue. He just uses it as an excuse to smear the right generally.
Robert Merkel and Ken Parish actually discuss the issue.
I don’t know what Quiggin says.
Aside from the host of human rigths based objections – the authour’s basic premise (that torture is a good means of extracting information) is simply not backed by any evidence. Id agree to any proposition with electrodes attached to my testicles. The info is about worthless in an intelligence sense – and certainly inadmissiable later in a court.
So, do we release the suspects since we cant charge them? No – hence, the slippery slope to Guantanamo is inevitable. Goodbye habeas corpus, goodbye rule of law. A strange argument for a Law Professor to make. He just hasnt thoughth it through.
Beyond this, it strikes me as a desperate plea for attentiion and government copnmsultancies. Im sure they’ll be successful with both.
Aside from the host of human rigths based objections – the authour’s basic premise (that torture is a good means of extracting information) is simply not backed by any evidence. Id agree to any proposition with electrodes attached to my testicles. The info is about worthless in an intelligence sense – and certainly inadmissiable later in a court.
So, do we release the suspects since we cant charge them? No – hence, the slippery slope to Guantanamo is inevitable. Goodbye habeas corpus, goodbye rule of law. A strange argument for a Law Professor to make. He just hasnt thoughth it through.
Beyond this, it strikes me as a desperate plea for attentiion and government copnmsultancies. Im sure they’ll be successful with both.
Gee, EP, you’ve been all over the place with the same argument. Worried about something?
Gee, EP, you’ve been all over the place with the same argument. Worried about something?
Yes, I’m worried that lefties may be able to get away with a gratuitous smear-job without any opposing voice.
Not worried now that the necessary dissent is in place.
Yes, I’m worried that lefties may be able to get away with a gratuitous smear-job without any opposing voice.
Not worried now that the necessary dissent is in place.
Whatever. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Whatever. If the shoe fits, wear it.
From now on I will assume that all left-wingers support the torture methods of the KGB and NKVD, unless they specifically deny it.
Wear that shoe, Graham.
From now on I will assume that all left-wingers support the torture methods of the KGB and NKVD, unless they specifically deny it.
Wear that shoe, Graham.
I loved Dunlop’s TORTURER’S logic: unless you SAY you oppose the academics you’re one of them!! (Pass the thumbscrew).
The world’s worst torturer is China. No left-wing bloggers have mentioned it today. They support Chinese torture. Guess they’re only gooks.
I loved Dunlop’s TORTURER’S logic: unless you SAY you oppose the academics you’re one of them!! (Pass the thumbscrew).
The world’s worst torturer is China. No left-wing bloggers have mentioned it today. They support Chinese torture. Guess they’re only gooks.
EP obviously means the FSB and SVR, as the KGB and NKVD no longer exist.
EP obviously means the FSB and SVR, as the KGB and NKVD no longer exist.
OK, I don’t support the torture methods of anybody, EP, I thought I should get that out of the way first, just to preclude any further name-calling.
I have three arguments against torture. The first is humanitarian. I think it’s awful to torture anybody at all, no matter what. Deliberately inflicting pain on another human being is a horrendous thing to do.
Second; it brings ‘us’ down to ‘their’ level. We (Australia, the US et al) are supposed to be the enlightened west. We’re the defenders of democracy, or so the rhetoric goes, while they are the forces of evil (leaving aside the sheer silliness of this proposition while I make my rhetorical point). We are good because we support human rights, democracy, the free market etc. They are so bad because they are terrorists, fundamentalists who support virtual slavery and so forth. Now torture is something ‘they’ do because they are evil; it’s something we should not do because we’re not. This is a clumsy way of expressing the problem; I hope it is clear that I find it hypocritical that ‘we’ consider ourselves so much more civilised than ‘them’ yet we are willing to embrace practises like torture.
Third, a utilitarian argument against torture seems to recognise that it’s usefulness as an intelligence tool is limited, for the obvious reasons, as Hermes outlines. Me? I’m a big wuss. I’ll admit to being the spawn of satan if you’re hurting me.
Finally, that ‘ticking bomb’ argument really is a red herring…. It presupposes all these potential scenarios in which torture is acceptable. Ie, the 24 scenario — torture one man and save thousands, nay, millions from nuclear devestation. How realistic is it that such an act will have a result? Not very, I’d say, given how terror networks operate, with cells that have only limited information etc etc. The authors suggest that if you captured one of Douglas Wood’s kidnappers then you could use torture to find him — but it’s a hypothetical situation still.
I hope that all made some sort of sense.
And no, C.L., I do not support any torture anywhere. China’s human rights record is deplorable. Should I go on and list every other human rights abuse around the world that I know of to prove to you that my anti-torture stance is pretty much universal?
OK, I don’t support the torture methods of anybody, EP, I thought I should get that out of the way first, just to preclude any further name-calling.
I have three arguments against torture. The first is humanitarian. I think it’s awful to torture anybody at all, no matter what. Deliberately inflicting pain on another human being is a horrendous thing to do.
Second; it brings ‘us’ down to ‘their’ level. We (Australia, the US et al) are supposed to be the enlightened west. We’re the defenders of democracy, or so the rhetoric goes, while they are the forces of evil (leaving aside the sheer silliness of this proposition while I make my rhetorical point). We are good because we support human rights, democracy, the free market etc. They are so bad because they are terrorists, fundamentalists who support virtual slavery and so forth. Now torture is something ‘they’ do because they are evil; it’s something we should not do because we’re not. This is a clumsy way of expressing the problem; I hope it is clear that I find it hypocritical that ‘we’ consider ourselves so much more civilised than ‘them’ yet we are willing to embrace practises like torture.
Third, a utilitarian argument against torture seems to recognise that it’s usefulness as an intelligence tool is limited, for the obvious reasons, as Hermes outlines. Me? I’m a big wuss. I’ll admit to being the spawn of satan if you’re hurting me.
Finally, that ‘ticking bomb’ argument really is a red herring…. It presupposes all these potential scenarios in which torture is acceptable. Ie, the 24 scenario — torture one man and save thousands, nay, millions from nuclear devestation. How realistic is it that such an act will have a result? Not very, I’d say, given how terror networks operate, with cells that have only limited information etc etc. The authors suggest that if you captured one of Douglas Wood’s kidnappers then you could use torture to find him — but it’s a hypothetical situation still.
I hope that all made some sort of sense.
And no, C.L., I do not support any torture anywhere. China’s human rights record is deplorable. Should I go on and list every other human rights abuse around the world that I know of to prove to you that my anti-torture stance is pretty much universal?
And also, what Ken Parish said.
And also, what Ken Parish said.
Up yours CL! You wanna talk about China’s violations? Sure thing pretty boy.
Let me save you some trouble. Yes, China is the world’s worst torturer. Yes, it should be condemned. So the next time little Johnny wants to talk about trade agreements maybe you should bring it up with him. Whadaya say?
When was the last time you heard a person or group crap on about us not trading human rights for trade rights, yada yada yada? Were they from the Left or the Right dipstick?
Up yours CL! You wanna talk about China’s violations? Sure thing pretty boy.
Let me save you some trouble. Yes, China is the world’s worst torturer. Yes, it should be condemned. So the next time little Johnny wants to talk about trade agreements maybe you should bring it up with him. Whadaya say?
When was the last time you heard a person or group crap on about us not trading human rights for trade rights, yada yada yada? Were they from the Left or the Right dipstick?
Trackback.
CL, you may be interested to know I mention China.
Trackback.
CL, you may be interested to know I mention China.
Well put Kate. On the utilitarian front (the basis most likely to work with our RWDB leaders) no less than CIA director Porter Goss told the US Intelligence Committee on February 16 that torture “doesn’t work.”
There you go, Mirko and Julie.
Well put Kate. On the utilitarian front (the basis most likely to work with our RWDB leaders) no less than CIA director Porter Goss told the US Intelligence Committee on February 16 that torture “doesn’t work.”
There you go, Mirko and Julie.
Ooh, what upset widdle JC?
Ooh, what upset widdle JC?
I think it may have been the naked hypocrisy of the Right on China, EP.
I think it may have been the naked hypocrisy of the Right on China, EP.
Compose an argument for breaking off relations with China on a human rights basis and I’ll probably support it JC. Couldn’t care less what Howard says about it and I couldn’t care less about the FTA.
Now take the pills Sister gave you on her afternoon rounds, draw the curtains and lie down a while. There’s a good boy.
Compose an argument for breaking off relations with China on a human rights basis and I’ll probably support it JC. Couldn’t care less what Howard says about it and I couldn’t care less about the FTA.
Now take the pills Sister gave you on her afternoon rounds, draw the curtains and lie down a while. There’s a good boy.
Just so I’m clear, the perceived dilemma framed in a question is:
Should we allow torture?
Just so I’m clear, the perceived dilemma framed in a question is:
Should we allow torture?
who’s a prety boy then? CL??????
Now that is torture!
who’s a prety boy then? CL??????
Now that is torture!
Homer’s sooky today because protestants have folded on the Marian question.
What are you talking about Hermes? The left boasts it was Whitlam who opened up relations with China. He also approved the genocide/annexation of the East Timorese. The Indonesian army certainly used torture. Good one Gough.
Homer’s sooky today because protestants have folded on the Marian question.
What are you talking about Hermes? The left boasts it was Whitlam who opened up relations with China. He also approved the genocide/annexation of the East Timorese. The Indonesian army certainly used torture. Good one Gough.
No CL Protestants approve of marian’ it is the catholic priests who aren’t allow to go marian!
No CL Protestants approve of marian’ it is the catholic priests who aren’t allow to go marian!
Speaking of torture and execution, CL, what is the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” up to these days? Something frightfully unexpected, no doubt.
Speaking of torture and execution, CL, what is the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” up to these days? Something frightfully unexpected, no doubt.
That’s pretty good Homer! The founder of your religion – Henry VIII – certainly liked Marian himself. And torture too!
That’s pretty good Homer! The founder of your religion – Henry VIII – certainly liked Marian himself. And torture too!
Worst. Pun. Ever. Homer.
Worst. Pun. Ever. Homer.
My religion wasn’t started by Henry. He was always a good catholic which is why the Pope gave him the defender of the faith!
My religion wasn’t started by Henry. He was always a good catholic which is why the Pope gave him the defender of the faith!
But my pun was without sin ie it was ressurected!
Is that why you are cross?
But my pun was without sin ie it was ressurected!
Is that why you are cross?
This is torture, Homer!
This is torture, Homer!
That religious diet of worms has made you quite ill Homer!
That religious diet of worms has made you quite ill Homer!
Make it stop, I’ll sign anything, confess to whatever you want, just get them to stop it!
Make it stop, I’ll sign anything, confess to whatever you want, just get them to stop it!
I’ve blogged a few times about torture/torture lite at my blog. I may repost the links. Recently posed the question if we would oppose the torture of even scum like Al Liddy (and recent reports suggest his mistreatment in Pakistan wasn’t getting him to talk). You have to remember of course that Israel went down this path – torture/torture lite in life threatening situations and found it unpalatable. Remember the Landau Commission.
There is one thing we deny in this: our own tendency to sadism.
I’ve blogged a few times about torture/torture lite at my blog. I may repost the links. Recently posed the question if we would oppose the torture of even scum like Al Liddy (and recent reports suggest his mistreatment in Pakistan wasn’t getting him to talk). You have to remember of course that Israel went down this path – torture/torture lite in life threatening situations and found it unpalatable. Remember the Landau Commission.
There is one thing we deny in this: our own tendency to sadism.
I think a definition of “torture” is essential to any such discussion.
I think a definition of “torture” is essential to any such discussion.
CL: Compose an argument for breaking off relations with China on a human rights basis and I?Äôll probably support it JC.
Good for you. Now is it the Right who are even bothering to try lately? Hmmmm, I wonder.
CL: No left-wing bloggers have mentioned it today. They support Chinese torture. Guess they?Äôre only gooks.
No it can’t be those darn Lefties now could it? ‘Course not. Dang. Better get back to work kicking puppies then.
Dickhead.
CL: Compose an argument for breaking off relations with China on a human rights basis and I?Äôll probably support it JC.
Good for you. Now is it the Right who are even bothering to try lately? Hmmmm, I wonder.
CL: No left-wing bloggers have mentioned it today. They support Chinese torture. Guess they?Äôre only gooks.
No it can’t be those darn Lefties now could it? ‘Course not. Dang. Better get back to work kicking puppies then.
Dickhead.
Please provide links evidencing calls by left-wingers for diplomatic relations with China to be broken off. As for the puppies, not sure what you mean but I know why your mind’s drifting…
What did I tell you about taking those pills? Sister’s gonna do her block when she sees you in your jim-jams outside the ward at this hour!
Do run along fruitloop.
Please provide links evidencing calls by left-wingers for diplomatic relations with China to be broken off. As for the puppies, not sure what you mean but I know why your mind’s drifting…
What did I tell you about taking those pills? Sister’s gonna do her block when she sees you in your jim-jams outside the ward at this hour!
Do run along fruitloop.
Now don’t go speaking ill of my mate CL.
I know JC and you ar no JC!
CL I eat wittenburgers. The only problem is the 95 theses at the end.
Now don’t go speaking ill of my mate CL.
I know JC and you ar no JC!
CL I eat wittenburgers. The only problem is the 95 theses at the end.
I prefer eggs benedict.
I prefer eggs benedict.
Meh. It was worth it.
Meh. It was worth it.
C.L.,
The PRC’s human rights abuses have always underlain leftist opposition to, e.g., an FTA with China. Maybe you missed it, but then you’re kind of a jackass.
C.L.,
The PRC’s human rights abuses have always underlain leftist opposition to, e.g., an FTA with China. Maybe you missed it, but then you’re kind of a jackass.
Gough Whitlam recognised China and was cheered by many on the left. He also gave the OK to the annhilation of East Timor – including by use of torture. (It was used there). As for FTAs, most of the fury was directed at the US agreement. There was comparatively little sound or fury on China. (And still isn’t). Nice try moron.
Gough Whitlam recognised China and was cheered by many on the left. He also gave the OK to the annhilation of East Timor – including by use of torture. (It was used there). As for FTAs, most of the fury was directed at the US agreement. There was comparatively little sound or fury on China. (And still isn’t). Nice try moron.
I remember when the Presidents of the US and China visited Canberra.
There was a big left-wing protest against the US, but none against the Chinese leader.
I remember when the Presidents of the US and China visited Canberra.
There was a big left-wing protest against the US, but none against the Chinese leader.
Your hazy awareness of events since the mid-70s, and the opposition to the Chain-FTA from labour unions and environmental groups suggests that you are in fact a dipshit. The way the AUSFTA was negotiated made it pretty clear how committed the Govt. was to community concerns when corporate dollars and shiny deputy badges were at stake.
Oh, and fuck Gough Whitlam.
Your hazy awareness of events since the mid-70s, and the opposition to the Chain-FTA from labour unions and environmental groups suggests that you are in fact a dipshit. The way the AUSFTA was negotiated made it pretty clear how committed the Govt. was to community concerns when corporate dollars and shiny deputy badges were at stake.
Oh, and fuck Gough Whitlam.
“There was a big left-wing protest against the US, but none against the Chinese leader.”
What, aside from Bob Brown boycotting both leaders?
Selective, selective, selective.
“There was a big left-wing protest against the US, but none against the Chinese leader.”
What, aside from Bob Brown boycotting both leaders?
Selective, selective, selective.
Bob Brown isn’t the same as 1000 chanting bozos in the street, which is what Bush got.
And when did Brown boycott Bush? He turned up to the speech and the handshake afterwards. I’m not sure they let him in the next day because he was such a dickhead with Bush.
Bob Brown isn’t the same as 1000 chanting bozos in the street, which is what Bush got.
And when did Brown boycott Bush? He turned up to the speech and the handshake afterwards. I’m not sure they let him in the next day because he was such a dickhead with Bush.
One of the authors of the report in question raises an interesting example here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s1302287.htm
“…11-year-old boy was kidnapped and a ransom was demanded, and the ransom was paid and the person who collected the ransom was apprehended while collecting it. So there was fairly strong evidence that this was the person that was involved, or at least had knowledge of this kidnapping. The man that was apprehended was interrogated for a number of hours by the police in Germany, and toyed with them a bit and led them to location after location that were false. Eventually the Deputy Police Commissioner instructed his officers in writing to try to extract the information by means of infliction of pain under medical supervision and subject to prior warning…Ten minutes after the warning, the suspect told the police where the boy was located and they found him.”
Turns out the kid was dead. Also turns out that the threat was a bluff – but still enough to get Herr Plod into deep Scheisse. At least the parents got to put their child in the ground.
Worth giving an axe-murderer a nasty turn? You be the judge.
Oh, and to suggest that this highly academic and deliberately contentious storm in a tea-cup has any parallels with the Solon/Alvarez case is a mind-boggling act of conflation.
To be blunt, this whole exercise sounds like another Tourettes outburst from Germaine Greer. This new ‘torture is OK, along as it’s only needles under the fingernails’ sounds remarkably akin to her ‘I like young boys’ controversy. Designed to drum up instant fame and academic notoriety. That’s the sort of thing that gets you a seat in the Ivy League (see also Peter Singer of Beastiality/Infanticide fame – Princeton).
It’s a stunt, not a debate we need to have. And the very act of holding the discussion will probably be used to by some clerics around the region to ‘prove’ that Australians condone the use of torture.
Oh, and that’s a nice furphy there SAG. The common theme in the left’s objections to FTAs, be they with the US, China, Thailand or whoever, has more to do with the threat of deregulation and the dropping of tariff protection for unionised industries in Australia.
One of the authors of the report in question raises an interesting example here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s1302287.htm
“…11-year-old boy was kidnapped and a ransom was demanded, and the ransom was paid and the person who collected the ransom was apprehended while collecting it. So there was fairly strong evidence that this was the person that was involved, or at least had knowledge of this kidnapping. The man that was apprehended was interrogated for a number of hours by the police in Germany, and toyed with them a bit and led them to location after location that were false. Eventually the Deputy Police Commissioner instructed his officers in writing to try to extract the information by means of infliction of pain under medical supervision and subject to prior warning…Ten minutes after the warning, the suspect told the police where the boy was located and they found him.”
Turns out the kid was dead. Also turns out that the threat was a bluff – but still enough to get Herr Plod into deep Scheisse. At least the parents got to put their child in the ground.
Worth giving an axe-murderer a nasty turn? You be the judge.
Oh, and to suggest that this highly academic and deliberately contentious storm in a tea-cup has any parallels with the Solon/Alvarez case is a mind-boggling act of conflation.
To be blunt, this whole exercise sounds like another Tourettes outburst from Germaine Greer. This new ‘torture is OK, along as it’s only needles under the fingernails’ sounds remarkably akin to her ‘I like young boys’ controversy. Designed to drum up instant fame and academic notoriety. That’s the sort of thing that gets you a seat in the Ivy League (see also Peter Singer of Beastiality/Infanticide fame – Princeton).
It’s a stunt, not a debate we need to have. And the very act of holding the discussion will probably be used to by some clerics around the region to ‘prove’ that Australians condone the use of torture.
Oh, and that’s a nice furphy there SAG. The common theme in the left’s objections to FTAs, be they with the US, China, Thailand or whoever, has more to do with the threat of deregulation and the dropping of tariff protection for unionised industries in Australia.
Is the “Chain-FTA” some kind of bondage swap club? I’m guessing you might know, Alan. I should concede some labour unions have problems with China – more specifically, Chinese workers they’re still trying to stop from coming to Australia. (Something about the little blighters’ heathenism and use of opium I think – always remember the labour movement’s Mongolian octopus).
It was Paul Keating, by the way, who pushed “Asian engagement” in the modern period, including with the economy of China – no questions asked.
John Howard never said Australia was a “deputy” – a journalist did. So you made that up. Dipshitery on this scale is not compatible with the name of the bright old man whose name you’ve borrowed.
Only those willing to cry “Gough” during the petite morte should contemplate intercourse with E.G. Another crappy contribution, then, Alan – speaking of little deaths.
Is the “Chain-FTA” some kind of bondage swap club? I’m guessing you might know, Alan. I should concede some labour unions have problems with China – more specifically, Chinese workers they’re still trying to stop from coming to Australia. (Something about the little blighters’ heathenism and use of opium I think – always remember the labour movement’s Mongolian octopus).
It was Paul Keating, by the way, who pushed “Asian engagement” in the modern period, including with the economy of China – no questions asked.
John Howard never said Australia was a “deputy” – a journalist did. So you made that up. Dipshitery on this scale is not compatible with the name of the bright old man whose name you’ve borrowed.
Only those willing to cry “Gough” during the petite morte should contemplate intercourse with E.G. Another crappy contribution, then, Alan – speaking of little deaths.
Well, your unreconstructed great-manism, politically abused molluscs, pedantry and daft puns have certainly taught us all a valuable lesson.
And E.P, your inability to remember the protests during Hu Jintao’s Free Tibet ’03 Tour does not affect their having happened. They were more modest in scale than those which greeted Bush, but it’s worth reminding yourself of the context.
Well, your unreconstructed great-manism, politically abused molluscs, pedantry and daft puns have certainly taught us all a valuable lesson.
And E.P, your inability to remember the protests during Hu Jintao’s Free Tibet ’03 Tour does not affect their having happened. They were more modest in scale than those which greeted Bush, but it’s worth reminding yourself of the context.
The context being that there were much bigger protests against President Bush, despite the fact that the US is a democracy and China isn’t, and that China routinely uses torture and the US doesn’t.
The context being that there were much bigger protests against President Bush, despite the fact that the US is a democracy and China isn’t, and that China routinely uses torture and the US doesn’t.
I think Popper would not have supported free trade under the rule of law with an evil Communist regime.
I think Popper would not have supported free trade under the rule of law with an evil Communist regime.
Well, I don’t like the administrations of the US or China, for different reasons, and I found the Australian government’s toadying to both parties quite disturbing.
And I do seem to remember a fair outcry around the time of Tianemen square from both the left and the right, so the claim that either side has ignored the human rights abuses of China is patently false. Both sides could do well to remember exactly WHAT China is — a massive, corrupt police state which exerts harsh punishments on dissenters.
How do we encourage reform in China anyway? Do we embrace the free market and hope that the iPod and the BMW will infriltrate China and bring democracy after? Or do we enact sanctions? I think we should all, regardless of our political stripes, condemn the actions of any state which treats its citizens in such a harsh way.
As an aside, I think what angers people about the US isn’t this idea that it is somehow worse than China, for example. The US holds itself up as a paragon of virture, and IT ISN’T. The hypocrisy of the American administration is much easier to get angry about than the not-terribly-surprising abuses of the Chinese government. I’m not saying this is right, but it is easier to feel disgust at images of US soldiers posing over degraded Iraqis in Abu Ghraib than it is about those vague stories one hears about human rights abuses in China. This isn’t a good thing, merely a natural things.
Compare reactions to massive earthquakes in Iran with the tsunami, for instance, which you can argue were based not on death tolls but on imagery and the fact that our own kind were involved. A clumsy parallel perhaps, but I hope you all can see my point.
And I agree the defining torture is important. Is sleep deprivation torture? What about implied violence? These are important issues and we should be debating them. I just don’t think we should say “oh, ya know, torture is ok because the end justifies the means” because then we become the very thing we’re trying to defeat.
Aargh, I’m rambling now. Need more coffee.
Well, I don’t like the administrations of the US or China, for different reasons, and I found the Australian government’s toadying to both parties quite disturbing.
And I do seem to remember a fair outcry around the time of Tianemen square from both the left and the right, so the claim that either side has ignored the human rights abuses of China is patently false. Both sides could do well to remember exactly WHAT China is — a massive, corrupt police state which exerts harsh punishments on dissenters.
How do we encourage reform in China anyway? Do we embrace the free market and hope that the iPod and the BMW will infriltrate China and bring democracy after? Or do we enact sanctions? I think we should all, regardless of our political stripes, condemn the actions of any state which treats its citizens in such a harsh way.
As an aside, I think what angers people about the US isn’t this idea that it is somehow worse than China, for example. The US holds itself up as a paragon of virture, and IT ISN’T. The hypocrisy of the American administration is much easier to get angry about than the not-terribly-surprising abuses of the Chinese government. I’m not saying this is right, but it is easier to feel disgust at images of US soldiers posing over degraded Iraqis in Abu Ghraib than it is about those vague stories one hears about human rights abuses in China. This isn’t a good thing, merely a natural things.
Compare reactions to massive earthquakes in Iran with the tsunami, for instance, which you can argue were based not on death tolls but on imagery and the fact that our own kind were involved. A clumsy parallel perhaps, but I hope you all can see my point.
And I agree the defining torture is important. Is sleep deprivation torture? What about implied violence? These are important issues and we should be debating them. I just don’t think we should say “oh, ya know, torture is ok because the end justifies the means” because then we become the very thing we’re trying to defeat.
Aargh, I’m rambling now. Need more coffee.
The original paper by Deakin Law academcis argues that “the pejorative connotation associated with torture should be abolished” and “the main benefit of torture is that it is an excellent information gathering device.” I hope, by “excellent”, they mean successful.
If so, they’re wrong. To the untrained mind, their argument is plausible, falling logically from this premise. But it ignores a vast body of evidence that torture is not a successful information-gathering device. Torture, CIA director Porter Goss told the US Intelligence Committee on February 16, “doesn’t work.” Reports from other intelligence, academic and survivors of torture networks affirm that evidence extracted under torture is notoriously unreliable.
Moreover, extracting information by torture takes time (witness years spent in Guantanamo Bay) and wouldn’t work in the authors’ ridiculous and unlikely ticking-time-bomb scenario.
This scenario and the argument are not original; they’re repeated on many far-right websites.. The authors quote Professor Alan Dershowitz to bolster their argument; yet Dershowitz dismisses the utilitarian ticking-bomb argument as “simple and simple-minded.” (Dershowitz also believed in the ‘weapons of mass distruction’ theory). Raymond Gaita has been clear about this: an immoral act that is used as a MEANS is itself an ENDS. It is no less immoral.
Once, we feared reds under the bed, now we’re told to fear an absurd ticking-time-bomb scenario that justifies legalising inhumanity. This raises questions about whether academics theorising about a cruel and barbaric practice that they will never experience are intellectually equipped to hold their positions at Deakin. Shouldn’t universities values evidence-based scholarship, sound reason, and humane values?Äînot alarmist ideology?
One more thing about the pro-torture campiagn: It’s curious that people who advocate stripping people of their civil and human rights reflexively resort the the right to free speech argument. (And no one, as I undersand, has suggested the authors shouldn’t have this right.) Deakin’s Vice-Chancellor Sally Walker’s defence of her law school academics fails to acknowledge that they employ shoddy scholarship and absurd reasoning. Their argument is not simply academic. It comes in the context of situations like Guantanamo Bay and laws like the Terrorism Act. It also comes at a time when Melbourne man Jack Thomas is being tried for terrorism charges almost solely (according to his lawyer) on the basis of evidence allegedly extracted under torture, with no legal representative present. In this context, the article seems less like free speech and more like a campaign.
The original paper by Deakin Law academcis argues that “the pejorative connotation associated with torture should be abolished” and “the main benefit of torture is that it is an excellent information gathering device.” I hope, by “excellent”, they mean successful.
If so, they’re wrong. To the untrained mind, their argument is plausible, falling logically from this premise. But it ignores a vast body of evidence that torture is not a successful information-gathering device. Torture, CIA director Porter Goss told the US Intelligence Committee on February 16, “doesn’t work.” Reports from other intelligence, academic and survivors of torture networks affirm that evidence extracted under torture is notoriously unreliable.
Moreover, extracting information by torture takes time (witness years spent in Guantanamo Bay) and wouldn’t work in the authors’ ridiculous and unlikely ticking-time-bomb scenario.
This scenario and the argument are not original; they’re repeated on many far-right websites.. The authors quote Professor Alan Dershowitz to bolster their argument; yet Dershowitz dismisses the utilitarian ticking-bomb argument as “simple and simple-minded.” (Dershowitz also believed in the ‘weapons of mass distruction’ theory). Raymond Gaita has been clear about this: an immoral act that is used as a MEANS is itself an ENDS. It is no less immoral.
Once, we feared reds under the bed, now we’re told to fear an absurd ticking-time-bomb scenario that justifies legalising inhumanity. This raises questions about whether academics theorising about a cruel and barbaric practice that they will never experience are intellectually equipped to hold their positions at Deakin. Shouldn’t universities values evidence-based scholarship, sound reason, and humane values?Äînot alarmist ideology?
One more thing about the pro-torture campiagn: It’s curious that people who advocate stripping people of their civil and human rights reflexively resort the the right to free speech argument. (And no one, as I undersand, has suggested the authors shouldn’t have this right.) Deakin’s Vice-Chancellor Sally Walker’s defence of her law school academics fails to acknowledge that they employ shoddy scholarship and absurd reasoning. Their argument is not simply academic. It comes in the context of situations like Guantanamo Bay and laws like the Terrorism Act. It also comes at a time when Melbourne man Jack Thomas is being tried for terrorism charges almost solely (according to his lawyer) on the basis of evidence allegedly extracted under torture, with no legal representative present. In this context, the article seems less like free speech and more like a campaign.
Well, said, Selwyn, particularly the refutation of the free speech screams.
Well, said, Selwyn, particularly the refutation of the free speech screams.
Thanks, Mark. Great page you’ve got going here. Can I recommend a wonderful article? It’s a piece arguing against Alan Dershowitz’s original justification for torture, which is the basis of the Deakin paper (I have the original in my possession if you want it emailed to you. I also have some very interesting replies from the San Francisco law review to my questions. Check out http://www.sleepybrain.net/nowhere.html to get a clue into just how they think over there,
Cheers, Kath
Thanks, Mark. Great page you’ve got going here. Can I recommend a wonderful article? It’s a piece arguing against Alan Dershowitz’s original justification for torture, which is the basis of the Deakin paper (I have the original in my possession if you want it emailed to you. I also have some very interesting replies from the San Francisco law review to my questions. Check out http://www.sleepybrain.net/nowhere.html to get a clue into just how they think over there,
Cheers, Kath
Jeez, I mean ‘Selwyn’. And the wonderful article is not on the sleepybrain blogsite, but on the democratic underground website. Sorry, I’m so damned tired…
Jeez, I mean ‘Selwyn’. And the wonderful article is not on the sleepybrain blogsite, but on the democratic underground website. Sorry, I’m so damned tired…
Have you got a link to democratic underground, Selwyn? I’d be grateful for an email such as you mention.
Have you got a link to democratic underground, Selwyn? I’d be grateful for an email such as you mention.
I’ll just find it.
(To clear things up: the San Francisco Law Review’s response to one of my questions is on Jeff Sparrow’s sleepybrain blogsite. The article is on the democratic underground).
Stand by.
I’ll just find it.
(To clear things up: the San Francisco Law Review’s response to one of my questions is on Jeff Sparrow’s sleepybrain blogsite. The article is on the democratic underground).
Stand by.
Why Torture Doesn’t Work: A Critique of Alan Dershowitz’ Case for Torture
March 11, 2004
By Jack Rabbit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/11_torture.html
Why Torture Doesn’t Work: A Critique of Alan Dershowitz’ Case for Torture
March 11, 2004
By Jack Rabbit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/11_torture.html
Many thanks for the link!
Many thanks for the link!