| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Q.C Okays Torture For Criminals & Terrorists |
| 2005-05-22 |
| A FORMER chairman of the Australian National Crime Authority has spoken out in favour of torture, saying it should be used against terrorists and in domestic criminal situations. Peter Faris, QC, today welcomed the debate sparked last week by the head of Deakin University's law school, Mirko Bagaric, who said torture was acceptable in some circumstances. Mr Faris, who chaired the national crime body from 1989-1990, has acted as a senior prosecutor and has represented high-profile clients such as alleged underworld figure Carl Williams. Mr Faris said it would be acceptable to use torture in criminal investigations. "A psychopathic murderer has buried a teenage girl alive and he is captured by the police," an example on Mr Faris's blog website says. "He refuses to say where she is. He taunts the police with his knowledge. Torture is acceptable to find the girl and to save her life." Mr Faris said his example was taken from the film Dirty Harry. In the case of terrorism, Mr Faris suggests: "A militant Islamic group in Iraq is holding a hostage in an unknown location and is threatening to kill the hostage. "A member of that group is captured, but refuses to disclose the whereabouts of the hostage and the rest of the group. Torture is acceptable." He said there were no guarantees that torture would work - "if you don't get the information, you don't get the information". However, "to pull out a fingernail of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives" was morally right, he said. "I'm not saying 'let's legislate immediately'," Mr Faris said. "What I'm trying to establish is that this is a legitimate issue to be on the table for debate ... but people start saying you're a Nazi because you want to debate it." Mr Faris said legislating for torture was not an ideal situation. "It's certainly not a society we want, the problem is these problems are thrust upon us by war ... they may be thrust upon us by a psychotic individual." On his website, Mr Faris says: "We are at war with terror and militant Islam in the Middle East. We are at war with Islamic terror in our homeland. "From time to time, circumstances will occur where it is necessary to use physical force on a captured person to obtain critical information." Mr Faris said standards of acceptable torture would have to be set if it were to be used. "Some sort of standard would have to be developed for the reasonable application of pain," he said. The National Crime Authority was replaced by the Australian Crime Commission in 2003. Professor Bagaric last week attracted an avalanche of criticism after revelations of his support for torture. Torture survivor groups, civil libertarians and some of Professor Bagaric's university colleagues reacted with dismay at news of a paper co-authored by him, which would soon be published in the United States. The paper, also written by Deakin law lecturer Julie Clarke, argues the case for the torture of suspects - even to the point of death - in a bid to obtain information. |
| Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042 |
| #3 Lol! Abu Qaqa? Shit, that rocks, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-05-22 20:48 |
| #2 Some techniques work, some not, but it is better to have the torture options available, than to take them off the table ahead of time. |
| Posted by: Abuqaqa 2005-05-22 20:10 |
| #1 it is a legitimate issue for debate. Better to discuss it and come up with realistic guidelines than to pretend that there is never any reason ..ever...to use torture. He gave good examples. The danger of acknowledging the necessity of evil is always abuse in the name of a higher cause. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-05-22 14:30 |