Does the unearthing of Osama Bin Laden justify the obtaining of information through torture?

Published originally in the Cambridge Universities Labour Club Blog (18/05/11)
http://www.cambridgeuniversitylabour.co.uk/does-the-unearthing-of-osama-bin-laden-justify-torture/

The detection of Osama Bin Laden and his subsequent death has obviously been big news of late. It looks like there will be an international investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death; the decision to shoot him when reports suggest he was unarmed, whether there was any real intention to capture him anyway and whether or not torture was used to glean the information from the Guantanamo detainees that led to his finding.

There have been a lot of noises coming from the White House suggest that Bin Laden’s capture proves the value of torture. Obviously the US were desperate to get rid of him and it is likely that his death reduces the likelihood of other innocent citizens being killed in a future terrorist attack of his design. However, does this result, or any other, vindicate torture in certain, exceptional cases?

145 world states have ratified the prohibition of torture, including the UK and USA, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights pronounces it unacceptable. Yet, it seems, in private, torture is still practised by governments who are not brought to justice, as appears happened in the extraction of the information about Bin Laden’s compound. Recently, some authorities have got around the rule through the practice of “extraordinary rendition”, which involves sending terror suspects for interrogation in countries where it is not prohibited by law. In his book, “Decision Points,” George Bush described a request from the CIA to ‘waterboard’ a suspect, who, it is thought, knew about imminent terrorist plots against the United States. He answered “Damn right” and said he would make the same decision again to save lives.

Waterboarding, the process which impresses the sensation of drowning upon the captive, was defended by the Bush administration after a US Justice Department memo in 2005 revealed that, through waterboarding the Al-Qaeda member Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the CIA gathered information allowing the government to prevent a 9/11-style attack on the city of Los Angeles.

One quite explicit reservation about torture is how effective is it in attaining truthful information. Under immense physical and psychological pressure, many suspects would simply tell the interrogators what they want to hear, which can actually harm rather than benefit investigations. In fact, many of those that are implicated in Al-Qaeda terrorism are willing to die and become martyrs for the cause. It has been suggested by guards at Guantanamo that most useful information comes instead from the guards building rapport with the inmates over time.

Guantanamo Bay 'Camp X-Ray' Detainees

A disgraceful proportion of inmates at Guantanamo Bay are held in spite of the fact that there is no comprehensive evidence against them, merely a “suspicion” of involvement in some sort of terrorist activity. The idea that completely innocent people are tortured for information they do not have is morally abhorrent and the proven psychological effects of some methods of torture last for years after its infliction.

It completely undermines the principle of Rule of Law (no person is above the law) if government ministers and intelligence agencies can award themselves an above-the-law status in the face of a mere ‘suspicion’ of terrorist involvement and inflict measured pain and suffering upon individuals who are yet to face a fair, legal trial.

In most worldwide courts, evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible. Apart from the obvious difficulties of trying the head of an international terrorist organisation, the court trying Bin Laden may have had trouble presenting key information which was obtained at Guantanamo Bay. This is possibly a reason why the Navy Seals appeared to make little effort to capture Bin Laden alive, yet it cannot be justification for acting outside the rule of law.

 The current age of constant terrorist threat is unprecedented and, probably understandably, national governments, particularly those of the US and UK, are overreacting by clamping down on civil liberties to guard against threats to the public. However, in an attempt to protect the nation using activities such as torture, they drastically encroach upon the freedoms of individuals. This behaviour is that of a totalitarian state and as much as that may help control terrorism, it conflicts with the principles the democratic world is founded upon.

In the case of ‘A v SS for Home Department [2004]’, Lord Hoffman in fact denied that Al-Qaeda was a ‘threat to the life of the nation,’

   “I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as [detention of suspects without trial]. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve.”

A “civilized democracy” that authorises torture upon a suspect foregoes some of that civilization and what makes it different from dictators or terrorists themselves: the equality of civil liberties and role of the independent judiciary to decide what is fair punishment.

The most convincing defence of torture as a life-saving option is the “ticking bomb” scenario; where a bomb is due to go-off in a city centre, inevitably killing thousands of innocent civilians. The authorities have, in custody, the individual who planted and could deactivate the bomb. Do they torture said individual and give themselves a chance of saving all those lives?

Apart from being quite an unlikely scenario, it does represent a situation where many would say the authorities should do anything possible to prevent the certain deaths of innocent people. One argument is that the west is at war with anti-western extremism and must take unprecedented action. The nature of terrorist attacks, which involve a significant element of surprise, means that most terror threats equate to a scenario of an ‘imminent threat’ to civilian lives. This certainly does not mean that all suspects should be tortured for information but the government has not the time to go through court or hold a referendum every time a ticking bomb scenario arises.

Osama Bin Laden in his 'safe house,' Abbottabad

According to a CIA memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who, it is professed, provided the location of Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, was waterboarded 183 times over 60 days at Guantanamo Bay. Overlooking the moral obscenity of torturing thousands who had nothing to do with Bin Laden, the fact that Sheikh Mohammed did eventually give in and Bin Laden was subsequently found could vindicate the effectiveness of torture in these circumstances. With consideration to the lives that are probably saved from the foiling of the L.A terrorist attack and the death of Bin Laden, the torture of suspects for the key information could be, in hindsight, justified.

Acts of forcibly-extracting information have been vindicated in some cases. The European Court of Human Rights ruling in ‘Gafgen v Germany (2010)’, declared the forced-procurement of information through threats of violence from a suspect constituted “inhumane and degrading treatment” under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights but not “torture.” Although the interrogators were punished (mildly) for coercion of evidence, some of which was rejected in trial, the court did not hold that the evidence obtained through the inhumane and degrading treatment rendered the trial unfair, as Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights suggests it should.

Terrorism comes from the autocratic belief that those involved are right and are willing to enforce this upon others for, what they have decided, is the ‘greater good.’ Torturing people for information equates to the same principal; our target is the most important and will be enforced.

We should remember the governments’ reactions to the (sometimes) violent actions of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, et al, whose causes, in hindsight, we all support but at the time were opposed by the government. I have no sympathy at all with any terrorist cause but governments cannot simply decide to enforce their own ideal of the world upon everyone; the rule of law and due legal process must be followed and the liberties of individuals upheld in this way.

I am inclined to agree with Lord Hoffman that terrorism does not pose an imminent threat to the life of the nation and equally, national governments and intelligence agencies cannot have the option of torture at their disposal, it would inevitably be abused. Torture must be illegal, including the procedure of ‘extraordinary rendition,’ and those that practice it must face legal trial.

Torture will inevitably continue, in global institutions such as the CIA and the US and UK government but the perpetrators must face trial. In a cogently exceptional circumstance such as the “ticking-bomb” scenario, it is likely the punishment would be lenient. In countries such as the US and the UK, to a lesser extent, which allow juries to reach a verdict contrary to the judge’s instruction as to the law; jury nullification and pardons, torture in a scenario that threatened the lives of thousands or even the “life of the nation,” could realistically be forgiven.

I don’t think the capturing of Bin Laden meets this criteria and I hope there is a comprehensive investigation and due legal process enacted against the perpetrators.  In practicing torture we resort to militancy in the same way as terrorists and sacrifice our standards of humanity and decency, undermining the whole premise of a nation built on the rule of law.

Education is not worth paying for

Published originally in the Cambridge Universities Labour Club Blog (14/03/11)http://www.cambridgeuniversitylabour.co.uk/Cambridge_Universities_Labour_Club/Blog/Entries/2011/3/14_Education_is_not_worth_paying_for.xml



      The annual Fitzwilliam college Brewster debate presented the motion ‘This house believes education is worth paying for,’ a highly relevant issue at the moment and obviously a highly contentious one.  I argued in opposition of the motion:

      It’s very difficult to argue that no one should pay for education at all; that education is valueless and shouldn’t be in any way funded. What IS up for debate is whether it is worth us, as citizens, paying for the education we receive. The introduction of tuition fees by the Labour Government in 1998 meant that, albeit with interest-free loans and other financial support, the individual had to at least contribute to the funding of their higher-education. Now, the system being introduced by the Conservative/Lib-Dem government, which allows different Universities to charge different prices to students and for different degrees, creates a market for education which will do more harm to society than good.

Nick Clegg with his infamous fees 'pledge'

      In autumn of next year, Universities will be allowed to charges students up to £9000 a year of the £13000 a degree ‘costs’. Not all universities will do this and not all students will be able to pay this. Universities like Cambridge, Oxford and Bristol have already said they will have to charge the full £9000 to remain competitive nationally and internationally. Other Universities with a lesser reputation will probably charge much less to gain an advantage in this new ‘market’. Universities will also be allowed to charge different prices for different courses. What this system creates is a market for education, as exists elsewhere in the world, where those fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families are educated in the top-tier of the country’s universities and the rest avoid university or settle for a lower-tiered university or alternative education. We will have a situation in this country where people don’t study because they can’t afford it, or even one where people have to choose their subject based on the cost of the degree. This is a huge kick in the teeth to social mobility; inequality across the country will increase and some children will be born with the option of being educated like others already defunct. We will also see, in ten years’ time, a skills shortage in the country because potential employees for those jobs picked a cheaper course a decade previously.
      People contend this point about rising tuition fees by pointing out that universities have to meet ‘access’ targets and follow the watchdog ‘Office For Fair Access’ (OFFA)’s regulations. Nevertheless, the precedent for charging more is set and the token gestures to support poorer students will inevitably dwindle over time. Loans will be available to cover the full cost to the individual of a degree and the wage threshold for paying back the debt has been raised. However, there is a realistic prospect for many students that they may never being able to pay the loan back in full and they will have to think twice about entering higher education. Some argue that too many people with degrees nowadays devalue the worth of higher education and there are too many “pointless” courses which may now be scrapped. The problem with this is of course that no one has the right to decide that what someone is learning is ‘useless,’ in the same way the NHS cannot start picking and choosing who receives healthcare.
       Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘No person shall be denied the right to education.’ Charging people for an education, whether it be at secondary school level or, more pertinently, in higher education, is an obstacle to this right. Any barrier to the exercise of a human right can only be a bad thing.
       In addition to this, the United Nation’s ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ includes “an obligation to develop equitable access to higher education, in particular by the progressive introduction of free higher education.”
       The charity ‘Save our Children’ report that 1.6 million children in the U.K. live in ‘severe poverty.’ It is no surprise that the biggest concentration of child poverty is in areas where the state schooling is the worst. These children are essentially born with a very low chance of succeeding in life. Paying for education is just another obstacle to a prosperous life for them. If our government has the aspirations it claims; to reduce youth unemployment and grow out of recession, then the objective of giving as many young people education has to come before any of efficiency, profitability and even international competitiveness in our education institutions.
       Today, someone who was privately educated is indisputably better off in terms of gaining a university place, a job and a higher salary. However, this is not how it should be.
       When the option of a private education exists and it is a better-quality alternative than the local state school, then parents that can afford it will inevitably invest in their child’s future by sending them there. You cannot criticize the people that ‘play the game’ and take advantage of the options available to them but, without private schools, and if state schools were brought up to the standard of south-east England, there wouldn’t be the widening gap between rich and poor created by the option for richer people to get a better education. Better investment in state schools would mean that people don’t need to go to private schools and thus make it a more level playing ground where children from rich families aren’t given an unfair advantage.
       The case is the same for university fees: if the universities are allowed to do push up fees and gain an advantage from doing so then wouldn’t they? However, the role of the state is to prevent there being this option. A market for a fundamental human right can only be a bad thing, in the same way it would be health or the provision of police and firemen.
      As we saw with the recent banking system crash, free markets fail when they are unregulated. They unfairly allocate resources and individuals act in their own self-interest. We, as a country, cannot afford to leave such important institutions as education, or, for that matter, banking, to the forces of the economic market. Too many people lose out and they lose out on something which they deserve by right.

      Education is not worth paying for because we shouldn’t have to. A society that offers equal opportunities to all does not allow the students born to richer parents to gain more from education than those born to poorer parents. Education should be an opportunity for the individual to find pleasure in learning and challenge their beliefs and not have the opportunity compromised, or conversely guaranteed, by factors completely beyond their control at birth.

       I am not in favour of a complete abolition of fees and the state paying entirely for education all the way through. However, as soon as individuals start paying different prices for a good, those who have more money will inevitably get more of the good. This cannot be allowed with respects to a fundamental human right such as education and so: Education is not worth paying for.