Talk of torture makes me shudder. How anyone could write such a long, drawn out, academic piece on the subject is beyond me. It's ghoulish.

However, I was attracted to the heading: "Torture produces terrorists". This, of course, is nonsense. Professor Manderson would have us believe that a "turning point in the lives of many Al-Qaida operatives was their imprisonment and torture..". They were only incarerated in the first place for failure to pay traffic fines, were they Professor?

This is putting the horse before the cart, and is as legitimate as the claim of a recent letter to the editor saying that it was no wonder people are terrorists when people like Kim Beazley called the London bombers 'animals'.

The Professor doesn't say how many terrorist were tortured before they committed their atrocities, or how many were not tortured before they committed atrocities. He can't, of course. But he should know that terrorists don't terrorise because of anything that has been done or said to them. They do it because they are religious maniacs with a hatred for anyone who is not also a religious maniac.

Yes Leigh those being tortured also shudder, involuntarily. But I agree with Manderson.

The fact that torture is being brought out in the open as an option for democratic government is an accident of history.

The US can (almost) openly sponsor torture and discuss the definition and legitimacy of torture, because:

- its the world's only superpower (most countries no longer have a choice of placing their faith in another superpower)
- hence the US has largely won the propaganda/information war
- neocons who currently dominate US foreign policy have an unflinching idea of the need for tough action
- the Christian right provides moral legitimacy for torture because:
- the issue is (almost exclusively) about torturing non Christians (ie Muslims).

I'm not denying that many countries do/have practiced torture openly (China repeatedly comes to mind) or that most countries do it quietly (eg. police "roughing up" suspects to ensure guilty pleas).

However we are talking about legal torture in a democratic country. The Australian debate about a torture option is completely derivative of the US debate about the ways and means of the War Against Terror. We wouldn't sink to such depths without the influence of Uncle Sam.

Australian lawyers and academics giving torture options a sympathetic airing are merely providing the kind of support traditionally performed by Australia (the little US ally) allowing US (sponsored) torturer's to continue their well paid duties.

Forgive me but at times for the greater good of a nation torture must be used or be there to be used.
We have followers of a dark, dismal, death loving religion, and I talk of only the fundamentalists here.
These gutless cowards will wrap a bomb belt around themselves, a woman or even a child. We, if we have a suspect who knows, need by any means to get this information to save innocent lives.
It's no good taking the high moral ground and allowing these murderers to kill our citizens.
Yes torture will demean us as a society in some ways - but consider the alternatives.
In WW1 submarines and their sinking of passenger liners was abhorant, in WW2 it was not seen as such, same as torture now.
Please if we gave torture away these cowardly suicide bombers and their totally craven handlers would see us completely gullible.
Which is worse torture to save innocent lives or have unarmed, unaware men, women and children blown to pieces?
Remember these same sub-humans have in the past laid siege to a children's school. These same uncivilised merciless killers have made girl's dolls and filled them with explosives. Apparently they have seen American servicemen/women giving these type dolls to Iraqi girls.
We are not dealing with decent, civilised, normal human beings here. numbat

I see that torture is discussed more in the context of terrorists rather than the in generality of control by the legally-powerful group not necessarily to provide information though that may be the excuse, but to frighten.
Since terrorists have been classed as scum by our opposition and since John Howard will not even talk with them to establish their reasons, rather Victorian I wonder if he enters rooms in which the table and chair legs are naked, and since terrorists have no clear definition, merely a variable list of attributes, Alice in wonderland definitions, I am not sure what we are talking about.
Huntington’s prophecy The Clash of Civilizations, apparently has pride of place, I.e. they, the big they horrible and mean are after us!
Some clarity is provided by Prof. Pape in Dying to Win an analysis of suicide bombers 1980 to 2005. He finds that a majority are not Muslim but secular and that most simply behave as they do outraged at occupation of their country.
In the light of this I must conclude that the question of torture is raised (and used) for the creation of fear by the state. All kinds of power enhancing legislation can be mounted assured of a panic acceptance by the governed. Certainly if, as in the case of the Muslims whose countries and culture has been illegally invaded by the west, a believable thesis. On the one hand a weak group fights in the ways available and the States as obscurantism as well as diversion highlight and use torture. The powerful target infrastructure and accept “collaterals” happily use phosphorous and ignore international conventions including Geneva, and count themselves honourable! Definition and propaganda are all.

leigh, if manderson's argument against the use of torture made you a little squeamish then its a good thing you wernt reading bagaric's original article. and i dont think he was suggesting that those in prisions across the middle east are innocent (some may be of course, i believe that there are a sizeable number of pro democracy advocates incarcerated in eqypt), but rather that the dehumanisation of their belifes or principals is accelerated or initiated by their own dehumanisation at the hands of their torturers.

the key point of this article as i see it, which i guess numbat missed, is that the objection to torture is not a sign of weakness or irrational sentimentality or squeamishness, but a position of strength, of rationality and principal, of civililisation against the primitive. it is certainly not a sign of weakness in the face of terrorism. you may say that they are not civilised or decent but what would we be if we gave in?

If it is permissible and moral to torture a Muslim fundamentalist for the purposes of protecting innocent Westerners, Christian fundamentalist or not, is it also permissible and moral to torture a white supremacist for the purposes of protecting innocent Muslim fundamentalists? The question of whether torture is morally acceptable is an abstract one. If torture is abhorrent it is simply abhorrent, not sometimes OK. It is either permissible or not, and if it is permissible it should be universally permissible. If we can torture the ticking bomb terrorist then we can't complain when someone suggests we should also torture people who we suspect don't make their kids eat their greens.

How dare anybody discuss torture as if they were talking about a stale cheese sandwich! Remember this - what goes around comes around! I have a feeling of such foreboding, such an 'I have been here before and seen this before' feeling. I remember the McCarthy Era when people were so afraid of the reds under the bed (instigated by the USA)and the years that followed. Replace the 'reds' with 'terrorists' and there they go again. It is my belief that Australia has not been a 'terrorist target' because we were a good example of giving everybody a fair go, etc. But now that the US has stirred up McCarthyism against muslims around the world, and some muslims have not forgotten the Crusades against them, I fear for the future. The Liberal Politicians of today have never had an original thought, in fact I doubt if they actually can think! As for the opposition I can only say, what opposition? And ASIO's misinformation! I remember how they were ridiculed about thirty years ago for their inanity. History sure does repeat. Such a pity that the redneck mentality has spread to Australia.

Reading the article and some of the posts it ocurs to me that I can think of plenty of movie like scenario's where I could live with the idea of torture. The bad guy is captured and the buried hostage child must be found before their air runs out kind of stuff.

In the real world such scenario's are very unlikely. What is likely is that if western governments begin to sanction torture we have moved a step closer to the end of much that we hold dear. We regularly choose to risk innocent lives in order to maintain freedoms. The presumption of innocence being central to that. We choose to place the burden of proof on the prosecution rather than the defence (except in tax and family law). How many crimes are committed because the evidence was not sufficient to convict someone of an earlier offence and isn't that better than "being charged" meaning "being found guilty"? Imagine the terror of going before a judge who never aquited anybody.

I'm not willing to trade the things that make our civilisation great for a little extra security. Nor to swap fear of terrorists for fear of the knock on the door at 3am and friends wondering what happened to me, and that is the path you are on when society sanctions torture. I'ts a slippery slope that is very hard to get off.

R0bert

Terrorism has been produced by impossibility to achieve desirable by means possible legally.

And torture is an effective tool to gain information used to please investigators and their bosses only.

While I agree that many of the terrorist (real & potential) have not been tortured in the past, and are therefore not the product of torture, what will be the effect of torturing somebody who is not in fact connected to, or associated with terrorists?

Torture is used to instil fear, demean and terrify the subject, whether for a distinct aim, or to prevent support for others. Use of it, means that the authorities who are only effective because they support the rule of law, are no longer viewed as validly being subject to it. As this is arguably the basis of popular sovereignty, to harmit is to harm democracy.

If people are too scared or terrorised to speak out democracy will not survive. Terrorising terrorists has historically strengthened their position, not weakened it. In this case, to destroy democracy in order to prevent terrorism is to acheive their ultimate goal for them.

This article misses the point.

Torture of mind has caused most of history's serial killers and also the newer "hollywood-hype" version such as the "Collumbine High massacre" kids, who through a combination of not being able to cope with the fast changing roles of men and women in modern society and the nihilistic effects that come from this, and a big cry out for attention in a harsh winner-loser capitalist society like America, turned into killers or "terrorists".
Torture is a term that the average westerner atleast sees as meaning the Japanese or Vietnamese Bamboo growing through your body or someone physically cutting off fingers etc.. To try to redefine "torture" as "undies on head" or "dog barking near person" or "music playing for 48 hours" is simply rediculous and certainly can't be seriously listenned to. The recent Abu Gharib scandal in Iraq just told the Iraqis that westeners are a soft touch and easy to get law suits out of due to their constant in-fighting between "left" & "right".
The reason why muslims today are becomming terrorists is due to torture yes, torture from within their own culture. Imaging if you were brought up to believe that a wicked person is someone who smokes or drinks or has sex, while your main role model, Mahommed, was a man who had 48 wives some of who were only 6 years old, he made his money by getting a percentage from all caravan raids in Arabia, he regularly massacred Jews, Christians and other Kafirs.Islam has produced the most racist, megolomaniad societies in the world.To say that this is an example of a "good" person is twisted to say the least, and it is no wonder why the muslims today are bitter, twisted people who actually believe the west is decadent. That must be why gang rape, narcotics sales, murder and armed robery are highest everywhere they live.
If you were brought up by parents who were so hypocritical and bigotted, wouldn't you crack and turn into a killer and a rapist?

Aaron,

Tortures surely incline people into particular feelings towards their interrogators that would stimulate further subtle performance of terror activities.

Harsh punishment for any misconduct leads to increasing cruelty towards casualties of this misconduct, to a higher number of possible witnesses being murdered, but does not prevent an issue of crime (terrorism) in general.

Matthew S

I recognise that "torture of the mind" may produce twisted posts.

Slow "Torture of the mind" is not what the article is about. Its about quickly inflicted physical torture.

But you might find it inconvenient that Australian law is "colour blind" or "religion blind". That is, a law permitting Australian "Christians" to torture "Muslim terrorists" would also apply to white Christian "terrorists".

Of course no trial or burden of proof that anyone is a terrorist would be required.

Torture will produce "answers" (useful or not - maybe just screams) in proportion to its brutality.

Which types of physical torture for Australians would you prefer Matt?

Plantagenet,

All torture, whether 'quick' or predominantly 'slow' (I presume you mean mental?), has a correspondent mental affect, upon both the individual and their aquaintances, and upon the wider community. What the ultimate outcome of such long-term, widespread mental torture and stress will produce is as yet unknown. Perhaps it could in fact lead to the formation of US style 'militia' groups, which are in fact clandestine movements, often with illegal or semi-legal weaponary.

It is never a good idea to place the population of a country in such a position that they only obey the government through fear of reprisal, detention or torture. This is the climate which could possibly result from use of such methods, and if it does democracy cannot survive - the average person would not take an active part in th eprocess if the y can be jailed / tortured for having done so.

The other major issue is that when people (individuals / groups) feel afraid of their government, or disenfranchised by its actions, they have a tendency to strike at the source of their fear/frustration. WHile much of this aggression would be passive it is inevitable that at some point, somewhere it would become physically violent. The use of armed forces to put down such uprisings has, historically, backfired many times.

Aaron

I can see that you picked up on the fact that I, like you, are completely opposed to torture.

I'm a little concerned that you seem to have adopted a new concept of the exteme right "world government conspiracy" crowd. That is (what they call) "slow mental torture" refers to an intergovernmental conspiracy to impose "draconian policies" (on subjects like security, workplace relations and child support payments) on a defenceless citizenry. They call this "torture of a communnity". No its not Stalin's Russia or the Inquisition. Yes in your mind its Howard's democratic society of Australia. Shock! Horror!

We can always vote the bugger out.

I'll let you guess which religion/race the extreme right see as imposing this new international order of "mental torture". A predictable update of "Gnomes of..."

While the average person rightly concludes that politicians are bastards you get an unholy alliance of the extreme right and left who see government policy as a calculated act of "mental torture". The true extremists (almost always on the right) see this as justifying terrorist acts against government buildings. Hence the Oklahoma city bombing - wiped out a large childcare center.

Wikipedia defines torture as "...the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain or grief as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent, revenge or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

If apply the term "torture" to a community it loses all meaning. Manderson may not have known it but he was refering to "State terror" (eg. Israel's policies on its Palestinian community) which of course is worse than organisational terror (eg Hamas).

Australian security laws are fairly moderate compared to other democracies (Britain, France, US, Israel, Iran, Russia etc).

If you are saying that our (soon to be passed) anti terror laws constitute "mental torture of a community" or "State torture" then you are giving in to the rightwing conspiracy theorists.

It seems as though some of the posts here are mentioning torture as practised by the United States. This is sad, although, for westerners, who aren't used to barbarity, underpants on heads or a light beating, as what happened in Abu Graib, this would be torture.

In reality though, torture is a mis-applied word. The US doesn't torture anybody by playing loud music for 24hrs while the detainee can't sleep. Torture is what Iraqi police just found, under government offices by the way (although apparently the Shi'ite government didn't know!), where people have had their skin peeled off with chemicals, or been strung up by their wrists for so long they've dislocated from their sockets.

Those victims would be happy to be in Abu Graib with Americans who simply make them undress and have a dog bark at them!

It seems as though not many here are on the same wavelength. Go and ask a WWII digger who was imprisoned by the Japanese what torture is, don't dare try to compare "undies on heads" to the cruel practices of barbaric cultures.

<All torture, whether 'quick' or predominantly 'slow' (I presume you mean mental?), has a correspondent mental affect, upon both the individual and their aquaintances, and upon the wider community. What the ultimate outcome of such long-term, widespread mental torture and stress will produce is as yet unknown. ….

It is never a good idea to place the population of a country in such a position that they only obey the government through fear of reprisal, detention or torture. …>

It is interesting whether the New Guard of the thirties activities had place in the same environment as ones recently established by appreciated the family values…

Aaron

It looks like I overstepped the mark in my response to you.

I assumed you had accepted the rightwing’s “mental torture conspiracy” concept while all you were doing was describing it.

Then I assumed you had a particular position on our government policies (but you had not even mentioned them on my string)

Most of my post deals with Australian extreme right thought. Then with “US style 'militia' groups” which you rightly point to.

Benjamin

Yes torture is in fact much more widespread than the US. China, much of Southeast Asia , Israel, the Arab countries and much of Latin America also practice it. Russia also does it in Chechnya.

However, the US goes far further than “underpants”. Unofficial “battlefield” interrogation, involves torture. The prisoner tortured is almost always killed immediately afterward and soldiers don’t talk about it.

The US has resolved the alleged “limitation past underpants” problem by sponsoring torture offshore in Jordon and Syria (as is becoming increasingly debated in the UK and Germany). The propaganda benefits of sponsoring torture of Muslims by Muslims is obvious.

The US’ fortuitous uncovering of an Iraqi Government torture center is odd in that the Iraqi forces involved are ultimately paid for by the US. Iraq is dominated by the US and if the US DIA and CIA were doing their job they already knew about this Iraqi torture.

While Russia and China are no doubt the (largely unreported) No.1 offenders regarding torture in the past and probably the present we hear more about the US activities regarding torture (and every other US activity from Hollywood to tennis) than about other countries’ activities.

People who are concerned about torture (usually of the left) appreciate that they can only act on information available. Also the US has a political system that is genuinely beneficial to the extent that it is responsive to criticism about human rights abuses unlike most countries that torture.

By the way having had a career in very conservative parts of government I'm no leftist student type, just concerned about human rights.

Dear Planetgrad,

the Us doesn't use countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Syria to get around western values, they use these countries to interrogate people who are from these cultures, who walk all over western weakness of decency and human rights, as it is the only way to get them to say anything more than, "when is my next smoke break uncle Sam", as he laughs at the stupidity of the western "tough guy".

Sure, it is a horrible thing to have to support but most of the world is still a horrible, cruel place.
Ask yourself this : What would Satan do if he were in heaven where say, for arguments sake, all of their resources were left in the open for anyone to use anytime? He would ofcourse steal all the resources, wouldn't he?
The more evolved culture doesn't produce people who would act so selfishly. So, to compare to the terrorist who the US gives to Egypt to interrogate(like Mr Habib), western ways are too far ahead of this person to be able to be effective, so we hand him to his own culture, as sad as that may be. It is a simple case of survival, not wrongness.

Matthew

The inherent evil of your logic speaks for itself.

If the US (and China and Russia) does indeed need to dance with the devil to get results, this is indeed State terrorism.

The US then losses any legitimacy to lead except through fear.

If the US interrogation/torture campaigh is working so well why is it losing the war in Iraq and blowing its brass?

I'm off on holiday for a week.

Till then.

Plantagenet.

Matthew
Three small points. 1) You state that the US does not use torture except for ridicule. But there have been charges levelled of people who've been given electo-shocks to the genitals. Doesn't that meet the definition of torture?
2) Let's say that the allegation of elecro-shock are all false. Unlikely but let's say so for the sake of argument. Then if I have a prisoner that I wish tortured & I hand him over to another country KNOWING that my prisoner will be tortured I am an accomplice. Guilty before the fact. Since all I am doing is rounding up suspects for someone else to torture. That hardly means my hands are clean. The US does this, that is a fact admited by the president. It follows therefore that the US government is an accomplice to torture.
3) as to the efficiency of torture many, many people have pointed out that TORTURE DOES NOT WORK! People will say anything under torture to get it to stop. Want proof? read the accounts of the inquisition where people admitted to being witches, having sex with the devil & flying on a broomstick just to stop the pain. Terrorist suspects will do exactly the same thing. Do or say anything you like just to stop the pain.
Finally you raised the question of satan in heaven & what would God do. I have a question for you. If Jesus were here now whom would Jesus torture & how would he torture them?

Despite national statistics to the contrary the spate of armed robberies, murders, rapes and hijacking has exploded out of control in South Africa. Violent crimes are knocking on the doors of everyone we know and care about. This country has spiraled into a cesspit of doom and lawlessness where the state is unable to protect its citizenry. You know I am tired of being spoon-fed absolute hogwash by the ruling party and those in positions of authority that this place is coming right, it isn't. Only Colombia shares a fate worse than South Africa as this is totally unacceptable. I cannot name a person in my family who hasn't been the victim of a violent crime, from hijackings to armed robberies and so forth. This is totally unacceptable. Corruption is rife, from the higher echelons to the traffic authorities and prison warders. How does the government propose to create a new mood in this country if the very fabric of our woven democracy is inherently flawed. The complete lack of respect for the very essence of human life is rife in this place; the complete disregard for morals and ethics and the desire to participate in violent criminal acts and women abuse and raping of children is nothing less than sickening. What type of savages are these criminal elements among us? It is time to priorities government spending and government commitment to this country. This has got to stop, it is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable! This is unrelated to torture however in a macabre way it is the citizenry of South Africa who are tortured by these tsunamis of crime.

Brett Chatz
Waverely
South Africa
http://www.brettchatz.com

bosk: When 'your gentle Jesus' returns He will not torture as such but, according to the Bible, He will kill thousands, even millions in Mediggo.
In the tribulation, before this killing, there will be first, is it a third of mankind slain then a quarter of those remaining or the other way around. Whatever it is a lot of deaths and no doubt many will die in agony as if tortured. numbat

What sort of Moocher came up with that?
Most Australians have been tortured psychologically for 30 odd years by the mediocrity of underachievers and legalized thieves. Whilst all our institutions have been taken over by Looters and laws made to protect them from us. I’m not a terrorist, nor do I know any, Angry and pee’d off, but then again in a small underachievers way you might have a little point about torturer, but in true Moochers psycho Epistemology, the real perpetrators yet again become victims: I’m made to feel guilty whilst they steal my everything. Bad luck, the Moochers, Looters and criminals and the murderers thieves are the bad guys not us. Something for everyone else to remember before you an any surrenders to existentialism and the habitual criminality they advocate. If anyone is excused for terrorism it is us, but we don’t stoop that low, nor shall we, nor shall we excuse it, nor shall we call it something it is not-and that’s Tolerance. Goodbye

Bosk, you obviously missed my point, since you said:

" If Jesus were here now whom would Jesus torture & how would he torture them?"

That is absolutely right, and my entire point. In comparison to the rest of the world through no fault of their own(it's just that Europeans were the first to produce civil society and democracy), the west is Jesus, they cannot just torture or kill or threaten people. For one it is illegal and secondly it would not be allowed by their own populations. The cultures of the Middle East and Asia do not have the same level of human rights or a populace that would actually care, as harsh as that sounds(but it is true), so their governments have no problem killing and scheming in whatever manner they wish. This is why Suddam was able to control his "jail" for so long. Instead of putting undies on his enemies heads, he would have tortured his family, their families, their neighbours, whatever it took to quell unrest.

I'm not saying that it is a good thing to have people hurt, but as long as they are not actually killed, and considering it is actually a state of war we are in, then what is the problem with scaring or indeed hurting the lowlifes most of these people are anyway, who kill kids and innocent women.

Besides, it all comes down to who you think are the bad guys here. The angry, deposed Iraqi Sunni "royalty" don't represent the Kurds or Shiites or indeed any Arab Christians who have been left alive over the years by their Muslim masters, these latter groups have a chance to build a new and possibly equal Iraq. The muslim diasporas in the western world, and the leftwing "bad-doers" don't know or care about this. The mostly sunni muslim community here in Australia obviously support the deposed sunni's, who by the way, regularly use tactics of killing innocent women and children just to get to a couple of US soldiers(nice people). Western values forced on them is what they need.

If you want to make an ommlette, you have to break some eggs.

Since I think we're all looking from similar perspectives, I'll disregard good and evil being points of view. There are greater goods and greater evils, there are lesser goods and lesser evils. On this, I think we can all agree. It is folly to always choose the good path which, in the scope of this duscussion, is not using torture. I'll use an analogy for simplicity. Going out for a night of binge-drinking and debauchery may seem like a good idea at the time, but it could easily end with a multitude of things which really were not worth it, as I'm sure many of you will understand. Now, turning down the offer to go out with friends to a night of binge srinking and debauchery may feel bad at the time, but will lead to the greater good of avoiding whatever horrible misfortune you would've endured otherwise. You aren't always going to endure horrible misfortune if you don't occasionally torture, but unless you do what is necessary to prevent that misfortune should it become probable, simple probablity will tell that you WILL endure that misfortune at some stage or another.

Of course, ultimately, the best way to avoid both the misfortune and the torture is to remove the need for them.

Brett

I'm aware of the state of South Africa, but your right, the authorities try to hide ethnic crime, although that's impossible in your country! I noticed that as soon as the blacks took over, Mandela, the man who has still NOT CONDEMNED MUGABE for torture (so in essence he stands for black rights, not human rights as is made out) when Mandela took power the first thing he did was basically make it impossible for a black man to be arrested for rape. With 38000 murders a year, staggering numbers when you consider Australia had about 710 murders last year, there are real problems there.

Regarding torture in general, it's a neccessary truth of our time. Most of this world, well, all of it outside of Western Europe, Canada, N.Z, Australia, and Japan is a hellhole. Torture is part of ways of life, part of the culture for most. Where are the moral relativists on this point?