The only thing that torture guarantees is pain; it never guarantees the truth

By Aliya Mughal, MF Press Officer

Torture has always been on the human rights agenda, yet never so explicitly as today, as some of the world's leading democracies spiral towards a brutal betrayal of human rights by openly defying the international ban on torture. Once a practice associated with repressive governments that would 'disappear' and torture people at will, governments who for years had banned the use of torture are warming to the idea that methods of physical and psychological coercion amounting to torture are acceptable in the "war on terror". It would seem that they are ready to ignore the devastation that torture leaves in its wake; both to the individual who experiences it and the rule of law in countries that practice it.

In 1948 the world's governments took a historical step towards enforcing every person's equal and inalienable right "not to be tortured" by establishing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then numerous regional and international legal standards have been set by governments banning the use of torture at time of war or peace. The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture typifies the world's revulsion at the cruelty of torture and ill-treatment and made it clear to the international community of nations that it was never acceptable.

However there has been a dramatic shift in the attitudes of world leaders towards some of our most fundamental human rights and they seem willing to trade them off in the pursuit of national security. Since the tragic events in New York on 9/11 the world has been presented with the idea that there can be no compromise to meeting the threats to our collective safety - including through the use of interrogation techniques that amount to torture and ill-treatment. Tony Blair famously declared that "the rules of the game had changed", and now Britain is contemplating returning terror suspects to Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Algeria - countries known to use torture routinely.

Yet resorting to methods that have been universally condemned can only compromise the values we profess to uphold, namely the value of human rights. Furthermore, circumventing the global ban on torture is based on reasoning that is flawed and has been known to be so throughout history.

One of the main arguments given for using torture is that it is a means to a truth and that torturing a person outweighs the hundreds of lives that could be saved. But, this argument is ill-founded. Even the CIA's own Human Resource Exploitation Manual of 1983 clearly notes that use of force only induces the victim to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear, that torture "lowers the moral calibre" of those who use it and "corrupts those who rely on it as the quick and easy way out".

FBI interrogation instructor Joe Navarro summed it up in December 2004 in an internal memo when he noted that "the only thing that torture guarantees is pain, it never guarantees the truth". The effects of torture are never confined to the interrogation room. The cruelty extends far beyond the moment and there are well-documented instances where knowing the suspects to be innocent, the torturers have remained unrepentant.

An important case that could reassert what constitutes torture under international law is the ongoing trial [as at time of writing] of seven British soldiers charged with the abuse of Iraqi civilians in 2003. The Iraqis were detained for 36 hours during which time they were cuffed, hooded, deprived of sleep and forced to maintain stress positions. All of these pre-interrogation methods are banned under international law. One of the Iraqis, Baha Mousa, was repeatedly punched and kicked to death. The soldiers allegedly bragged about the lengths they went to. One of the soldiers has admitted treating the Iraqis inhumanely, making him the first British official to be charged with a war crime. This case would go some way to showing that states cannot dress torture up as interrogation techniques and think they can get away with it.

"The objective of torture is to try and destroy somebody physically, psychologically and spiritually," says Alex Sklan, MF Clinical Director. "The sensation of pain after the torture has happened is a reminder of what caused the pain in the first place. I've heard clients who were subjected to very sophisticated methods of torture where they were made to squat for hours, which damaged their backs. They were told 'you'll remember this for the rest of your life'. It's part of the destruction process; 'you won't be able to function because you'll always remember this pain'."

It can take years to combat the effects of torture that may have involved repeated rape, whipping, beatings, starvation, prolonged isolation, suspension with hooks, being cut with broken glass and being forced to listen as others are executed. The methods vary in sophistication and cruelty. Sklan refers to the need for survivors to transcend torture, a process that can take years and will never be fully complete because the reminders will always seep back in; even when the physical scars have grown less distinct, the psychological scars will always be indelible.

"The most important thing is bearing witness, you've got to give people a reason to live," he says, referring to the Auschwitz survivor Simon Wiesenthal, who after the liberation of the camps went on to gather vital documentation for the Nazi war crimes trials. "He said the only thing that kept him going was the thought he would tell the world what happened. The torturer controls the victim by saying 'no one will believe you' and that's what we are faced with here. To imagine a world where you won't be believed is the end of all hope."

Not only have the rules of the game changed, so has the language. By disguising torture as 'forceful interrogation' it creates a fiction that deliberately undermines our understanding of the reality of what those methods involve. This diluted, sanitised depiction of what is fundamentally torture represents a dangerous obscuring of reality. When the current US Vice President described the technique of water boarding - simulated drowning - to a "quick dunk in the water", he implied that there are no boundaries, no human consideration when dealing with terror suspects. His comments ignited a debate that raised an alarming level of support for his attitude amid a climate where the victims of torture are presented as guilty of the most indefensible - though never stated - crimes against humanity.

As long as the debate around torture is led by the myth that there is no alternative to securing our safety, it will always garner support. The only way to counteract that myth is to see past the rhetoric and define torture in terms of its barbaric motives and destructive effects. Torture is morally and legally repugnant, a fact that is timeless. Attempts to rationalise its use are no more than cynical denials of that incontestable reality.