Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 14 2005.
This is another article that reports a White House aide again failing to rule out the use of torture on terrorist suspects. It quotes Stephen Hadley as saying that
“The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law”
but we know from the Slate article I mentioned earlier that this relies on the very dubious interpretation of the US ratification of the US Convention on Torture that it applies only to actions taken within the US.
In other words (according to the Bush administration), there is nothing fundamentally wrong with torture.
Where do I stand on this? In a battlefield situation, where war has been declared and the identity of an enemy combatant is indisputable, I’m unsure of how to argue logically for the fundamental immorality of torture as a means to elicit information. After all, the military situation implicitly involves trying to kill people – hardly a smart way to show respect for your enemy’s fundamental human rights. However, you might argue that once you have disarmed and imprisoned someone they are no longer a direct threat to you and as a reflection of your belief in peace and mercy (from a Christian perspective) you should keep them imprisoned to prevent them from doing further harm but not harm them beyond the purposes of justice (i.e. reasonable punishment for their known deeds).
Others would argue, though, that unless they are willing to give you information that you need to further protect your own, they are continuing to passively harm you and you are justified to mete out due retribution. Well, ok, but you had better be sure that they really are not already telling you truthfully what they know. Torture just on the basis of speculation that someone may have something else to disclose that you need to know simply cannot be justified.
Beyond this, in the case of an undeclared war in which the role of an alleged combatant cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, torture also cannot be justified. Judicial review to determine guilt before administering punishment is surely a fundamental human right, that applies regardless of the individual’s citizenship or location in the world. I see no indication in any statement from the administration that they hold this view or would refrain from torturing someone purely on the basis of speculation about it’s pragmatic military value.