|
I've spent a bit of time recently looking at the comments written by Mail readers in support of torture [here] [here], but I'm still not sure what the Mail really thinks of torture. On the one hand you have the likes of Richard Littlejohn who fails to distinguish between terrorists (those actually convicted of terrorism) and suspected terrorists (those arrested, detained, tortured for several years and released) and therefore supports torture as there is (in his mind) no such thing as an innocent terrorist suspect. On the other hand, as the torture is being carried out under a Labour government, some writers condemn torture as a sign of further moral decline. Whereas some writers simply abhor the use of torture and argue that to practice torture is to become the very evil that we are supposed to be fighting. This leaves Mail commentators somewhat confused: they hate New Labour, but they also hate terrorists, so what are they supposed to think?
Some commentators have no problems condemning both: While I have no time for Blair who I see as a cancer on the country I have no problem whatsoever with the tourture of prisoners. Long may it continue! - Simon, Nottingham England, 28/2/2009 12:32 Whilst others argue that torture is perfectly legal: The Geneva Convention does NOT apply in this situation. Please check your facts.
Also, I'm not sure why you characterize it as: "Tony Blair, without reservations or qualifications, signed us up for George W. Bush'sWar on Terror." British planes were also being shot at by Saddam's men over the no-fly zone. Blair didn't have much choice at that point, just like Bush. Leaders have to protect their military and Iraq was breaking the terms of the cease-fire. My husband is in the military and we get tired of people forgetting about that! The war, for all intents and purposes, was already back on the moment they started firing at us. - Heather K., Augusta, GA, USA, 28/2/2009 3:20 Others argue that torture, although unpleasant, is to be expected as there is a war on: Davis should keep his mouth shut. We are in a war on terror not a sixth form debate. - Bob Silentio, harrogate uk, 01/3/2009 14:28
The arguments put forward by Mail commentators are contradictory. Take Heather (ignore her absolute gibberish about the 'no-fly zone') who states in her first paragraph that the 'Geneva Convention does NOT apply in this situation', then at the end of her post refers to the 'situation' as a 'war'; if it is a war, then the Geneva Convention applies. The war being fought is labeled the 'War on terror', so therefore it must surely follow the rules of warfare (although the rules of warfare is an oxymoron). Bob takes a slightly different approach, but conveys the same message: there is a war on and therefore such behavior is justified - we must match the terror being used against us. Such an argument is regularly put forward by Mail readers: come on a war is being fought,against a lot of people who would see our society destroyed,the end justifies the means.britain never has been a saint,look at the origins of concentration camps,back to the boer war at the end of the 19th century by the famous lord kitchener. - steve, thailand, 28/2/2009 4:48 However, if we can justify our own use of torture on the basis that essentially 'all is fair in love and war' then do we give up the right to condone terror attacks on innocent civilians? Surely those who seek to attack the US or UK would argue that their end would justify their means? We can assume that a person who is prepared to detonate a suicide bomb is pretty convinced by the merits of their cause before they press the button, but it does not make them right in the eyes of a neutral observer. Likewise, the arrest and torture of suspects carried out by the US and UK might seem justified by those with absolute belief that those detained were terrorists and that torture is the only way of effectively getting information from them. However, a neutral observer may well find the method as equally abhorrent as the suicide bomb (and equally as ineffective at achieving the end goal). If we want to condemn those that seek to kill innocent civilians, then we must also condemn those that seek torture suspects. We cannot argue that we need to torture suspects in order to protect 'civilisation', 'our way of life', or the 'free world' when torture and detention without trial actually undermines all of these concepts. A civilisation worth fighting for would play no part in the torture of suspects and would presume a suspect innocent until proven guilty and would be. Perhaps Mail readers should consider this before they continue the support of torture with one breath, whilst bemoaning 'broken Britain' with the next. |
