Friday, August 11, 2006
Human Rights of the Terrorist
Does the concern of 'human rights' hinder the ability of a country to act decisively ? Does the moral squeamishness regarding the willingness to use force ('overwelhming' or otherwise) impede a nation's ability to defeat it's conventional enemies ? Defeat motivated terrorism ?
For example - Is a country like India too soft on terror ? Is Israel using 'overwhelming' forces against civillians in Lebanon ?
1. Any voilent confrontation inevitably leads to 'innocents' being killed. Let's accept that voilent confrontation IS ugly. In times of war/insrugency/terrorism, governments do not have the time to act 'honourably' at all times. Its just not possible. Period.
Was not the conventional World War II peperred with examples of 'overwhehming' force used by the allies, (the good guys) i.e. Bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima. The free world could have theortically lost the World War II. Yes, some innocent German and Japanese civilians were killed. But then that's how wars go...
The most common liberal refutation to this argument is - "doing the same heinous acts brings us down to the level of the perpetrator (read terrorist). And hence we are not morally better than the terrorists". This is a flawed argument. (c.f. post on "Relative Values"). All humanity must agree to a set of 'ground rules' and if a particular group refuses to adhere to these, then they need to be brought round (by influence or eventually, by force).
Moreover, in a war/counter insurgency/anti-terrorism, an entity is seriously disadvantaged if the other party is not willing to play by the 'rules of decency'. The terrorists do not have any regard for 'human rights' whey they carry out terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. (Even the already-dead suicide bomber had no respect for human rights) However, governments are hampered by 'human rights' when dealing with terrorist prisoners. . Personally, I believe that a person should NOT be granted 'human rights' if s/he does not have the same for others. When the governments are trying to prevent further attacks by resorting to torture of a suspect, it becomes 'unaccpetable'. Why ?
Liberals say "do we know if the prisoner is privy to the required information or is being tortured in vain? It is wrong to torture somebody merely on suspision". This is where I disagree. Let us accept that some "innocent" suspects WILL be tortured, for the larger cause (just like the innocent dead Germans and Japanese in WWII bombing by allies). Torture is wrong. But the bigger wrong would be the failure to prevent a further heinous crime imposed by our moral squeamishness...There is an Indian proverb "Genhun ke saath ghun bhi pista hai". Literally translated, the weevil is crushed along with the wheat while making flour. Achieving the 'greater' goal (of making flour/ preserving freedom) requires sacrifice of some innocent lives (weevils/ civilians). That's how it's been and will be.
2. The second common argument liberals have is that abuse of human rights is unaccpetable by ANY benchmark, however noble the end cause is (read prevention of the heinous terrorist attack). The concern being, once we agree to suspend human rights, the abuse becomes rampant and goes unchecked, beyond the control of anybody. It becomes a subject of indiviudal judgements. Once let loose, there is no stopping it and in effect we are encouraging a "Big Brother", a totalitarian government.
While I agree with parts of the argument, i think that this is a worst-case scenario. Any democratically elected government which has a free press, judiciary and other such institutions, will mitigate the risks of a totalitarian regime. The institutions of democracy broadly ensure that this mass-usurption of rights does not happen. Any government which oversteps its mandate will eventually find itself voted out.
In fact, a totally liberal regime may also find itself voted out if it is 'too soft' on terrorists and consequently unable to protect it's citizens. (some smart politician will grasp the 'security' plank). People do, and rightfully so, expect the goverment to protect them. And anybody who cannot will not rule for long. The temporary 'dilution' of human rights is the necessary price which any war entatils -even conventional wars in the past.
3. Finally the question comes - A 'terrorist' to one is a 'freedom fighter' to others. To this, i reiterate, there are some basic ground-rules which all of humanity has to abide by. Once a group does not agree to these basic ground rules in pursuit of it's cause, it loses all human rights and sympathies, however noble the orignial cause may have been.
This may seem as a defense of the 'hawks'. However let us all accept that armed confrontations are not won on principles, nobility of the cause and good intentions. The world is governed by the cold logic of victory and if you are not going to protect your own freedom, nobody else will. If you are non-violent, there is no guarantee that others believe in non-violence as well.
For example - Is a country like India too soft on terror ? Is Israel using 'overwhelming' forces against civillians in Lebanon ?
1. Any voilent confrontation inevitably leads to 'innocents' being killed. Let's accept that voilent confrontation IS ugly. In times of war/insrugency/terrorism, governments do not have the time to act 'honourably' at all times. Its just not possible. Period.
Was not the conventional World War II peperred with examples of 'overwhehming' force used by the allies, (the good guys) i.e. Bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima. The free world could have theortically lost the World War II. Yes, some innocent German and Japanese civilians were killed. But then that's how wars go...
The most common liberal refutation to this argument is - "doing the same heinous acts brings us down to the level of the perpetrator (read terrorist). And hence we are not morally better than the terrorists". This is a flawed argument. (c.f. post on "Relative Values"). All humanity must agree to a set of 'ground rules' and if a particular group refuses to adhere to these, then they need to be brought round (by influence or eventually, by force).
Moreover, in a war/counter insurgency/anti-terrorism, an entity is seriously disadvantaged if the other party is not willing to play by the 'rules of decency'. The terrorists do not have any regard for 'human rights' whey they carry out terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. (Even the already-dead suicide bomber had no respect for human rights) However, governments are hampered by 'human rights' when dealing with terrorist prisoners. . Personally, I believe that a person should NOT be granted 'human rights' if s/he does not have the same for others. When the governments are trying to prevent further attacks by resorting to torture of a suspect, it becomes 'unaccpetable'. Why ?
Liberals say "do we know if the prisoner is privy to the required information or is being tortured in vain? It is wrong to torture somebody merely on suspision". This is where I disagree. Let us accept that some "innocent" suspects WILL be tortured, for the larger cause (just like the innocent dead Germans and Japanese in WWII bombing by allies). Torture is wrong. But the bigger wrong would be the failure to prevent a further heinous crime imposed by our moral squeamishness...There is an Indian proverb "Genhun ke saath ghun bhi pista hai". Literally translated, the weevil is crushed along with the wheat while making flour. Achieving the 'greater' goal (of making flour/ preserving freedom) requires sacrifice of some innocent lives (weevils/ civilians). That's how it's been and will be.
2. The second common argument liberals have is that abuse of human rights is unaccpetable by ANY benchmark, however noble the end cause is (read prevention of the heinous terrorist attack). The concern being, once we agree to suspend human rights, the abuse becomes rampant and goes unchecked, beyond the control of anybody. It becomes a subject of indiviudal judgements. Once let loose, there is no stopping it and in effect we are encouraging a "Big Brother", a totalitarian government.
While I agree with parts of the argument, i think that this is a worst-case scenario. Any democratically elected government which has a free press, judiciary and other such institutions, will mitigate the risks of a totalitarian regime. The institutions of democracy broadly ensure that this mass-usurption of rights does not happen. Any government which oversteps its mandate will eventually find itself voted out.
In fact, a totally liberal regime may also find itself voted out if it is 'too soft' on terrorists and consequently unable to protect it's citizens. (some smart politician will grasp the 'security' plank). People do, and rightfully so, expect the goverment to protect them. And anybody who cannot will not rule for long. The temporary 'dilution' of human rights is the necessary price which any war entatils -even conventional wars in the past.
3. Finally the question comes - A 'terrorist' to one is a 'freedom fighter' to others. To this, i reiterate, there are some basic ground-rules which all of humanity has to abide by. Once a group does not agree to these basic ground rules in pursuit of it's cause, it loses all human rights and sympathies, however noble the orignial cause may have been.
This may seem as a defense of the 'hawks'. However let us all accept that armed confrontations are not won on principles, nobility of the cause and good intentions. The world is governed by the cold logic of victory and if you are not going to protect your own freedom, nobody else will. If you are non-violent, there is no guarantee that others believe in non-violence as well.
