Alternatives to Torture, 1
Author: Mike Scantlebury
Alternatives to Torture, 1
We live in a tough old world. As a recent film tries to
tell you, it's possible that you will be snatched off the
street tomorrow by people you don't know, bound and gagged
and flown off to some far-distant part of the world where
you can be interrogated. Oh, all right, then, we'll tell
the truth. You'll be tortured. Pain will be inflicted on
you as a way of encouraging you to confess the crimes that
you're planning, such as terrorist attacks on the Western
world. This is all in the name of 'security', patriotism
and anti-terrorism - all good stuff. If all goes well,
you'll tell them what they need to know and lives will be
saved. That is, if you are a terrorist. Things start going
wrong if you aren't.
Let's imagine, purely for the sake of argument, that you
aren't a terrorist, haven't been and don't plan to be.
You're strung upside down and people you don't know and
haven't been properly introduced to are beating the soles
of your feet with iron bars. They ask you questions, and
you hesitate, because you know you don't have any answers.
In fact, as soon becomes clear, these people are pretty
sure they already know the answers to the questions they're
putting to you – they just want you to confirm their
suspicions. What do you do? At first you might figure they
will come to their sense, realise you aren't a threat and
let you go. If they don't seem willing to do that, you
might come up with another plan: you'll admit anything they
put to you. That way, at least they'll stop the pain. Of
course they won't let you go either, but at least you might
get a day in court and then you can plead your innocence.
Trouble is, you've just admitted your guilt. Not to worry,
you'll tell the court your story, tell them you only made
an admittance so that they'd stop doing the bad things they
were doing. So they might believe you. But they won't. The
record shows that people who admit their guilt – such
as the Birmingham Six in Britain in the 1970s – and
then retract their forced confessions on the grounds it was
beaten out of them - aren't believed later.
So, torture works. At least, if you are the person aiming
is to find someone to admit to being guilty. Like the
Birmingham Six, you then have people you can blame for the
bombing of civilians and the state can send them to prison
and announce that justice has been done. In that case,
unfortunately, as it emerged later, they got the wrong men.
It took many years but it was later proved that they had
nothing at all to do with the crime. The judges had to let
them go. But why? Why were they in jail? Because they'd
admitted they had done it. Why? Why would anyone admit they
were guilty unless they were? Because they were smacked
around for days, deprived of sleep and threatened. This, in
a civilised country like England. In any other part of the
world it would be called 'inhumane and degrading
treatment', in other words, torture. Not here. We don't do
torture in Britain, (we say.)
But we did once. It was back in the time of Shakespeare and
shortly after. Then we tortured witches, regularly. We know
they were witches because they admitted they were witches.
That's why they were then killed, because of all the evil
things they admitted to doing, like consorting with the
Devil and flying around on broomsticks. Now here's the
problem. No one does that sort of thing anymore, (at least,
as far as we know). Oh sure, there are some people who call
themselves White Witches and claim to mix potions and cast
spells – but only to do good. So here's the issue: we
live in a scientific age and think that talk of witchcraft
is nonsense. No one can really fly around on a broom,
(except in movies). But did they ever? If they did, then
why can't we do it now? If they didn't – because it's
impossible, we know – why did they ever say they did?
We know they said they did, because we have the records.
Why would people say such a thing? Well, one reason might
be because they were routinely tortured. That's how our
ancestors extracted the confessions. Maybe, just maybe,
there never have been people who can fly or cast bad
spells. But that means – well, that the people who
said so were in fact lying, for some reason. In order to
stop the torture, perhaps.
In the modern world it's different. We know that terrorism
exists, because we've seen it happen, and we know that
terrorists are out there somewhere, planning it. The
problem is, using torture, that we have no way of knowing
– for sure – if the people who admit to it are
being genuine, or lying, to save themselves pain. Ah, you
say, but if only one life is saved – yes, well then,
any amount of inflicted pain might seem justified. The
problem with that is that we aren't being told if it's
currently effective, for the sake of 'security'. Well,
sorry, but that doesn't add up. If our side uncovered a
terrorist cell because we had a spy in their camp, then no,
we wouldn't want to reveal the source and so ruin their
placement. But if we torture information out of a person?
Well, then we already have them as a prisoner. It does no
harm to reveal who they are and what they've alleged, does
it? So we should be seeing spy cells broken and terrorists
arrested. Regularly. Why aren't we?
There could be one simple reason. Maybe the sad fact is
that not a bit of useful information is coming from
torturing detainees at this present time. The truth might
possibly be that doing torture in the modern world is
merely 'busy work', making it look as though we're fighting
the threat of terrorism without actually doing anything
useful – such as catching the real bad guys, perhaps
by intelligent means. After all, if we could do that, we
wouldn't need to torture anyone, anymore. Is that an
alternative?
About the Author:
Mike Scantlebury is an Internet Author who asks questions.
He hasn't any answers but he's written thrillers and spy
novels and takes a interest in discussing international
events. He's also arguing the future of publishing. You can
join in the debate at his web site.
Try http://www.PublishingisDead
