No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This has been one of the most debated and patrolled articles. The use of torture has been so widespread in times of war and terrorism that it has become government policy in many countries, just another extension of police and military processsing.

It probably falls under “does the means justify the ends” debate. Does torturing information out of a prisoner, which turns out to save lives, justify the action.

Abu Ghraib is an example of how it can all go horribly wrong. The US is not alone in taking whatever measures are needed to break or humiliate a prisoner.

There is no mention in the UNDHR of the responsibilities that come with the granting of rights. Clearly breaking the law is one of them and that would include waging terrorism or state sponsored war.

The Geneva Convention set the standard for treatment or prisoners in a more conventional theatre of war. But many political prisoners are routinely tortured and they may include prisoners arrested for any number of reason which may include terrorism, which these days cuts a wide swathe.

But when dealing with people who wish to kill and maim civilians (such as the 7/7 bombings in London) how far would you go in trying to extract information?

Is it justifiable under pragmatic grounds or should it just be ruled out? Does one take an absolutist perspective such as no death penalty or does one take a more relavatist or utilitarianist approach?

There are many differing views on this.

My personal view is that we should oppose torture. It just lowers us and keeps the fire of anger and hatred burning and quite frankly rarely achieves anything except to deliver more bad karma into the universe.

What do you think?

Tags: amnesty, human rights, repression, torture, un declaration of human rights, violence