Sometimes the nature of journalism forces us to take hypothetical decisions based on circumstances we are unaware of and in situations we will never find ourselves in. I do not agree with torture, but that is not to say that I cannot understand its use and even, in specific examples, acknowledge its importance.
Case in point: last week’s gair rhydd contained an article in which Oli Franklin stated that ‘There is never an excuse’ for torture, in response to an article from Independent journalist Bruce Anderson arguing that ‘We not only have a right to use torture. We have a duty.’
Such black and white arguments, framed through rhetorical questions manage to turn a complex moral debate into a simple ‘for or against’ issue. However this debate is surely more complex than these polarised views. I would have to argue that the moral and philosophical debate surrounding torture (one which has spanned hundreds of years) cannot be summed up merely by these two opposing sides.
Take for instance the example of murder, according to the Bible ‘thou shalt not murder.’ However, our legal system is mature enough to recognise not only that there are different degrees of murder, but also that sometimes murder is committed in self-defence, and so is the lesser offence of manslaughter. By this thinking, surely there are similar degrees of torture? Torture that is wrong, torture that is right and torture that straddles the gulf in between.
Unfortunately, unlike in a court of law, unelected officials make decisions in secret as to whether torture should be applied in a certain situation. Therefore any debate on torture will inevitably be based on these hypothetical scenarios since we are unlikely to ever learn of the successes or failures when torture is used in places like Guantanamo Bay. The lack of concrete examples available to either side means that it is impossible to quantify the relative success or failure of any use of torture. Proponents will talk generally of terror plots foiled whilst opponents will cite the lack of evidence as proof that torture lacks meaningful returns.
I can think of countless hypothetical examples that could be used to support torture (sacrificing one to save many), but similarly there are countless more which could be used to counter these arguments.
This is the real issue. It is easy for commentators to declare their opinion on whether torture is right or wrong when neither commentator will ever actually have to take the decision as to whether or not torture is used. And without any examples or facts, the debate is set to remain largely within the realms of opinion for the foreseeable future.
So where does this leave the torture debate? Well, all things considered, it’s arguably futile. But I believe that the debate surrounding the issue of torture is an important one for the future direction of our society.
Only once we have shown that we can have a mature debate about torture, without scare-mongering or exaggeration and agree on what is acceptable, unacceptable and how to differentiate between the two, will we be able to criticise certain uses of torture whilst accepting others.
In much the same way that we already violate people’s human rights to freedom with a judge, jury and reasonable evidence, so can we be mature enough to justify torture in the right circumstances.