Gut Reaction
Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda operative: "I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress". The result of an 'alternative set of procedures'.
Khaled Shaik Mohammed, chief al-Qaeda planner of 9/11: "Of course during this month I fell asleep on some occasions while still being held in this position. This resulted in all my weight being applied to the handcuffs around my wrist resulting in open and bleeding wounds."
We react with horror and disgust when hearing of the use of torture to extort information from those held captive, charged with crimes. Of course in soft human circles torture is considered a crime. Civil people do not engage in such inhumane practises.
And then there are the prisoners, those charged with truly heinous crimes. Not merely crimes already committed, as greatly damaging to society as they have been, but charged also with planning, in conspiracy with others, additional threats to great and violent proportions.
To extract from those being held in custody some information that may be helpful in being able to guard against further vicious assaults on one's country and citizenry civil beings visualize politely asking the accused for the information required to protect their community. Oddly enough, expressions of contrition do not trip easily from the lips of those who have conspired and been successful in creating terror, and mounting successful murderous attacks.
They may indeed admit to having committed those acts, as some are proud to do, claiming them to have been honourably committed in response to the ancient commands of a deity they worship and whom they believe, through sacred texts, demand such sacrifices. But while they may be pleased enough to accept the triumph of successful mass murder, they are understandably less amenable to incriminating others, or revealing details of further planned terror acts.
How to deal with such people? Clearly, to behave with them in the manner in which they have done with the injured party is to reveal oneself as having as few moral scruples as they have displayed - even if under the guise of doing homage to one's Maker. This does present as a conundrum. Countries claiming to be obedient to a civil code, subservient not to a vengeful god, but to a social pact, a legal and functioning Constitution of the people, by the people, for the people have other values.
Enquiries reveal that those civilized, moral, ethical and values-driven countries occasionally succumb to the severity of extreme punishment in an concerted effort to extract vital information from the accused. We are overwhelmed with revulsion that a civil society would resort to such means and methods. All the more so, when we are informed that such means and methods do not result in meaningful data.
What they do result in, is a form of institutionalized vengeance. One religion espouses jihad, encouraging its adherents to go forth and terrorize in the name of the one true religion. The other encourages a hard justice equated with "an eye for an eye". Each religion claims to represent itself as a bastion of peaceful longing, for equality among all humankind. Wherefore it is obvious to conclude that those who avenge and those who revenge are pretenders.
The thing about violent physical adversity is that he who turns the other cheek willingly sacrifices himself to further abuse, meekly accepting what is meted out. God, in whatever guise He takes, is said to help those to help themselves. If and when aggression is met with aggression, we are informed that two wrongs a right do not make. But aggression meeting aggression informs the original aggressor that his will may not be tolerated.
Modern, democratic governments are theoretically far removed from descending into the hell chamber of torture. In reality, we are all human, and we will react and respond as human beings will. Harm me and mine, and you will bring greater harm upon yourself and yours.
Labels: Justice, Terrorism, Traditions, World Crises
<< Home