If the rule of law and national security are both in the public interest, and they are in conflict, which one do we choose to uphold?
If it is against the law to torture, but that's the only way to extract intelligence about a security threat to our country, which choice should a government make?
If violating the human rights of one person is necessary to preserve the safety of the general public, should we therefore use violence to prevent violence, break the law to keep the peace, dehumanise an individual to protect the humanity of ourselves?
If such an individual is violated and tortured, should the perpetrators be answerable to the courts? And should all evidence be made available to the court, and the person be assured that before the law they have rights that cannot be denied because undue influence is brought to bear on the court, the Government or its intelligence agencies?
I've never been injured in a terrorist bomb. No one in my family has been killed or had their body shattered by bombs or bullets. So I might not be asking these questions if I had to live with consequences that lead to shattered lives. But I can't help feeling that something near fatal to democracy, something corrosive of human rights, something that threatens the everyday safety and security of us all, something that is morallly toxic is abroad, when allegations of torture, and due legal process, can be frustrated by the prior claims of 'intelligence' and 'terrorist threat.'
In the eyes of the Romans, and various other intelligence gathering agencies of religious and political groups, Jesus of Nazareth was a terrorist threat – who was tortured and crucified. I've never yet heard a positive spin on the verse 'It is expedient that one man should die for the people.' But I'm waiting.
See The Guardian Editorial, along with the links in the piece,
Leave a Reply