Normally, it would be against my blogging instinct to refrain from using images, audio or video. But here, I do not wish to distract or to entertain. Here, it’s just words. Convincing, inspiring and much-read words I hope.
The video-spoof I posted earlier may lead you to believe I do not believe in security, or safety. It may lead you to believe I feel torture is a laughing matter.
Let me be clear: this is in no way the case.
I believe a human being in any society deserves a life free from want, each as much as the next. There is no single human being unworthy of life and security. So, on this point, I agree with the argument of Eline van den Broek. She for her part would probably agree with me when I say that freedom isn’t free. Only, we disagree on its cost, and on who must pay it.
Ms. Van den Broek believes that security and protection for citizens may be achieved by sometimes using torture on suspected terrorists, to save civilian lives. She says we must be realistic, and not hypocritical.
Call me a hypocrit if you like. But I believe that in a free and democratic society, one can never be a hundred percent protected. There will always be death. There will always be disease. There will always be crime. Perhaps there will also always be war. There hopefully also always be doctors, and detectives, and men and women willing to fight for a cause they believe is righteous.
But in each there cannot be an absolute. Doctors may not experiment on living subjects without limitations, no matter what good may possibly come of it. Law enforcement may not receive unlimited authority, no matter what security this may provide for citizens. And so, men and women who are willing to fight for a righteous cause may not do with other men and women however they please, no matter what safety this may produce.
The hypocrisy-argument is not a void one. Yes, I will admit, were I diagnosed with a disease that former - less than ethical - research might have remedied, I would probably wish we had done that research. If my belongings were stolen, or my loved ones murdered by criminals, I probably would wish we had given law enforcers unlimited authority. And if a terrorist managed to destroy my world and civilisation as I knew it, I probably would wish I had agreed with unrestrained interrogation techniques.
But that is exactly the point: we cannot base our society on the impaired judgement that comes with the mentioned extreme situations. We do not allow fear to dictate medicine’s ethical standards. We do not allow fear or revenge to dictate the judicial process. In the same way we should never allow fear or revenge to dictate our treatment of other human beings – however, this is exactly what Eline van den Broek is proposing. She proposes to ask “a mother of a lost child in Madrid, or a husband who lost his wife in the attack in London, what they think of our security policy” – implying torture could have prevented both these attacks.
I do not know if the famous ‘ticking bomb scenario’ is a realistic one, or if it will ever come to pass in the conceptual purity in which it is often presented. I deeply hope I will not be the one to have to choose should this horrible dilemma present itself. And I do not know, if I should have this power, what I would do with it. I only know that this decision, which Eline van den Broek apparently already has made in her mind, should never be viewed lightly, or worse; serve as a basis for law, softening the prohibition on torture.
The very bedrock of our civilisation, I believe, is not that we will do upon others what they may do unto us. To the contrary: it is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you – a cliché, but a very powerful one.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, according to Wendell Phillips. This does not mean, however, the vigilance of special forces torturing suspects. Because the second part of his quote, “power is ever stealing from the many to the few”, indicates its true meaning.
A quote that is a little more lengthy, recent and to the point however is one in the Economist when it stated: “When liberals put the case for civil liberties, they sometimes claim that obnoxious measures do not help the fight against terrorism anyway. The Economist is liberal but disagrees. We accept that letting secret policemen spy on citizens, detain them without trial and use torture to extract information makes it easier to foil terrorist plots. To eschew such tools is to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back. But that—with one hand tied behind their back—is precisely how democracies ought to fight terrorism.” Thanks to ZachtEi for the quote.
(3 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
I really like your arguments. And, as you’ve hoped, I find the words without any audio, video or images powerful enough here.
Hello I have to tell you that your site is very interesting I really like your theme!
Very engaging post with quite profound arguments. I enjoy reading it, thank you!
It is similar to individuals study my thoughts! You gaze to know very much in the region of this valuable, just like you published it with them something like that. There’s no doubt that that you choose and could very well carry out with a little r.m. to make what it’s all about place a bit, but nevertheless in contrast to of which, however this is outstanding blog site. A wonderful understand. Let me most certainly return to their office.