www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, May-June 2005Voices from the inside outWhat is gained by the use of torture?by Robert Taliaferro "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 5, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 1948). Perhaps it was because the world was so horrified by the ultimate examples of the human propensity and ability to propagate unspeakable cruelty on other human beings. Perhaps, with the development of ultimate weapons of war, it was felt that such high moral values could be enacted on a worldwide stage. Whatever the reasons for their construction, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first attempt at globalizing and standardizing the rights of humans everywhere, regardless of race, color, creed, or nation. The UN General Assembly requested the member countries "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories" (United Nations Department of Public Information). The world had such high hopes then, short-lived, as many human endeavors tend to be when politics becomes the governor of moral attitudes. The effects of torture in its various forms have been discussed and studied extensively since 1948. It was not long before these studies redefined the use of torture as a viable weapon of war. History teaches us that the use of torture is not new, of course, but in a more enlightened mindset following World War II, it was often defined as unacceptable for a "civilized culture" to embark upon the use of torture for any reasons--at least openly. EXTENSIVE TORTURE TECHNIQUES Great Britain has used torture techniques extensively during its occupation of what was to become Israel, and during its war with the IRA. Israel in turn used similar techniques on Palestinian prisoners; and we are familiar with stories from around the world of how torture has been used to elicit information, or for the purposes of intimidation. We have all heard of, or read, the reports from such groups as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Red Cross, and it was with some surprise that several of those organizations finally cited the U.S.--especially relating to the treatment of U.S. prisoners--as violating the international human rights conventions relating to torture and cruel and unusual punishment. The definition of torture is not well understood, but a report in 1999 helped highlight things that were considered abusive, including the use of supermax prisons; chain gangs; punitive cell extractions; indefinite solitary confinement; even the use of stun belts, pepper spray, tasers and other "non-lethal" devices. It should be understood that this report was not a result of allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, but rather in American prisons, perpetrated against American citizens and INS detainees. In 1995 the U.S. took the position that the Constitution adequately protected citizens against torture by prohibiting it, or any form of cruel and unusual punishment, when it submitted a report to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, attempting to take the moral high road regarding the torture issue and supporting its stance to not ratify International Covenants. Congress set about abrogating the laws giving victims of abuse the ability to obtain effective judicial review. In the 1990s under the Republicrat Bill Clinton, the war on crime was the defining factor of why such tactics had to be available to law enforcement; in the new century, the war on terror has become the supporting factor. And yet, one must ask: what is really gained by the use of torture? A recent program on Fox showed government agents using torture not only against imagined terrorists, but against their own people who allegedly were affiliated with terrorists. One has to wonder why the moral Right did not complain about such actions as vehemently as they complained about the mini-second clothing malfunction of Janet Jackson that was showed more on the primetime news than appeared during the event. ACCEPTABLE IN THE U.S. Perhaps it is because torture has become an acceptable practice in the U.S. After all, only criminals and terrorists are tortured. Perhaps because there is no accountability on the part of government since torture has to be prosecuted by an assistant government attorney who would ultimately have to answer to the U.S. Attorney General who feels that torture is a justifiable action, especially in war. And perhaps the much-lauded American morality in such things has been eroded by government-instigated fear, instilled to cover up its shortcomings in trying to find a solution to an unsolvable dilemma. Whatever the case or reason, if we are to subscribe to the concept of instilling democracy, justice, and equality around the world, then the examples of such processes cannot appear on the nightly news as unlabeled government jets whisking people off to undisclosed countries to be tortured secretly; and people cannot be disappeared in this country. And equality and justice must appear--and be--just, for all the world to see, for moral imperatives are not electable concepts that are defined by politicians, regardless of who they are or what they purport to represent. Torture, in any form and for any reason, is immoral. |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
