Thu 14 Feb 2008
HRW has published a 44 page summary on the account of what happened to Tasneem Khalil in custoday.
Here is the chilling full report where there is a lot of first hand account by Tasneem.
The international media has picked up the news story widely.
Original thread from last May in UV.
Here is a reaction that we got after someone read through the piece:
My blood is boiling with rage. I have been there all along in Bangladesh but never knew a single word of it. So you see how ‘neutral’ this media has become. I was in total darkness. I read T Khalil’s blog once in a while and thought that was a smart guy. It was so appalling to see what happened to him and its even worse than Pak Army cause its our own Army. I knew DGFI is involved in some notorious activities but this is the first time I saw first hand evidence.
The report on Tasneem is outrageous, no doubt.
However, if someone reads it as a damning indictment against the whole of army in general, it will be wrong. As evident from Tasneem’s testimony, there were a number of people in army (juniors) who were sympathetic to him. But the reality is that there is unchecked and unaccoutable power to a very few. When that happens, there is bound to be misuse ot it. As a result, the image of the whole institution suffers. That is what we are seeing in Bangladesh today. That is why an institute that was not trained for law enforcements should not have taken over this job for such a prolonged period. It simply does not work. So this is damning indictment against using army for law enforcement and also an indictment against arbitrary use of power. Most importantly its a damning indictment against torture.
In the original thread posted after Tasneem got released, someone from the inside named “ABC” joined in the blog. It was a very encouraging start to a meaningful civil-military dialogue. Unfortunately, it stopped as ABC decided to give veiled threats to bloggers. Although he said there were a lot more information about Tasneem was forthcoming, but other than a tabloid article from leaked emails, nothing surfaced since then.
There can be a lot of opinion about Tasneem and his reporting. But everyone must come in unison to say that what was done to him was wrong. Our sympathies to him and his family who is having to endure so much. No reform, no election is meaningful in the absence of rule of law and accountability.
Lastly, an excerpt from a comment made by Mridul on that thread addressed to ABC.
We all make mistakes and so does the military - we just have to learn from our mistakes and move on, and not try to justify them with made-up stories. We are all in the process of trying to re-build our country after many years of injustice and corruption - you, your colleagues in the military, I, Tasneem and everyone else are all really on the same boat. What’s the point in fighting with each other?
I sincerely hope that you will be able to convince your colleagues in upholding the task of an institution that is supposed to make us feel safe, not scared.
We couldn’t agree more and at the same time we want accountibilty for these actions and a safe passage for Tasneem and his family back home so that his child can grow up in a free country without the fear of losing his father in a ‘crossfire’.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I hope the torture descriptions from Tasneem will convince at least some people not to cheer or ignore torture claims made by political leaders including Tareq Rahman. Apparently Tareq Rahman and some businessmen inclding Giasuddin Mamun went through much worse than what Tasneem explained.
Nobody deserves this kind of treatemnt. Even if someone is convicted of a crime, law clearly instructs punishment. No punishment condones this sort of physical and mental torture.
The military establishment and their crony will have to pay for all these crimes very dearly.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Tasneem is the brightest star on the darkest night. He has exceptional Love and respect for his own Country.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I think the main UV blog is unnecessarily soft on the Army and its DGFI thugs. Those who offer to apologize in one breath and then claim `it was no torture, just a bit of conditioning’ in the next, do not deserve any dignified neutrality. Human rights are for human beings.
And note that these “sympathetic” people included Brigadiers who repeatedly used the word Malaaun as a derogatory slur - Pakistani style, or Pakistani bhuter aasar? ABC, or Corporoal Shihab, wherever you are, you have nothing to claim in your own defense, except for your guns.
I condemn this army, and I condemn any one who benefits from this army, directly or indirectly. I condemn any one who defends the indefensible actions of this army… even if for the sake of “unity” and “moving on” — one can only “march on” at gun-point towards total subjugation so long as this heinous remnant of the Pakistani Killing machine is in existence, now retrained with the latest US technology in torturing.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
This is a gruesome description of how the DGFI treats people in its torture cells. We need to bring all intel. agengies like DGFI, NSI, RAB etc. under strict anti-torture laws. Having guns in hand should not give them the power to beat and kill people mercilessly at their will.
I demand a detailed investigation of Tasneem’s case and trial of the officers behind this torture.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Rumi #1 - “Nobody deserves this kind of treatemnt”
—-
True. The culture of torturing people in jail and police custody is a regional practice throughout S.Asia - and should be ‘reformed’.
However, what I would really like to see more in these blogs, and is totally missing, is how does the astronomical exploitation and corruption BY people like TZ affect the lifestyle, poverty and HR of millions.
What direct and indirect effects occur to the life and future of innocent millions, due to the deprivation of their BASIC RIGHTS, (promised by the nation), due to criminal and irresponsible abuse of power (by corrupt cult leaders)?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Read these in stories and watched them on movies, never thought that I would read a first hand experience. they wanted to “crossfire” him..Blackhole 1,2 3…Whole Bangladesh is a blackhole now..this is scary, really scary..
This Govt has lost the moral authority to talk about democracy, with tanks and guns you can do anything…please do not teach us democracy.
looks like our bloggers played an active role in spreading the news around the world..I appreciate your efforts at this difficult time since our media has become “boba” after 1/11.
Many people do not consider the torture on TZ or other political leaders as human rights abuse.These are the people who feel ’secured’ when a ‘criminal’ is killed by crossfire.RAB is a killing machine sponsored by the state, a Frankenstien given free license to kill..yet we like that idea, much needed for law and order…
#5, KGazi
Since 1/11, all kinds of media in bd are constantly telling us about the “astronomical exploitation and corruption BY people like TZ” and other politicians.Don’t you think that’s enough? My guess is that bloggers don’t know more than what have been published or showed in the media so far.
lastly , I want to repeat what Shameran Abed said in a recent editorial og NEWAGE:
“At the end of the day, the people will always much prefer to be governed by the devil they know and have some say in selecting than the one they do not know and cannot control.”
February 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Mr Gazi
Don’t try to fool people into going into Tareq Zia and corruption debate and cover the issue in discussion. This is about beastly torture and atrocities committied by some senior establishment members of Bangladesh armed forces. This blog is about their acts in the name of detention and remand. Lets talk about this corruption in this post. Good try, but sorry!
February 15th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Let us be outraged, but let us also start a discussion about what steps our next democratic governments (whenever they appear on the scene) can take to minimize this heinous pattern of behavior. I do not think this kind of abuse can be totally abolished, as welcome as that might be. But can we hope for a trial of those who made this torture possible, in an open court of law? Can we start trying to gather the testimonies of countless more who must have gone through similar hellish experiences, and then putting them on record?
Once more, my sympathies to Mr. Khaleel. I echo what Rumi bhai said,”Nobody deserves this kind of punishment.”
February 15th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Last summer, when I was in Dhaka, a three person RAB team lead by a young captain came to my artist friend’s house with the army personnel carrying some sort of automatic weapon and the captain with a pistol. Apparently, some retd. colonel who was a neighbor, didn’t like my friend’s lifestyle (please note, he was never disturbed. And they never met. In fact he lived quite a distance to be disturbed.). So, he flexed his muscle a bit and got the RAB team to come and take my artist friend away. Since my friend is somewhat well known and respected, I proceeded to talk to the captain as they were taking him away. The sheer arrogance of a 23 or 24 year old captain astounded me. He was not rude to us. But I was shocked to see how this young guy exercised his power and treated us like bugs and dismissed us completely with his politely uttered words. Thank God they let my friend go without torture (but with lots of ‘bhalo hoye jao’ sabak) the next morning after like a zillion people contacted the high officials.
The arrest of Tasneem happened right around that time. I remember some of the daily star reporters were not happy with their editor as he failed to stand for his journalist. I knew Tasneem was harassed but never thought he was tortured.
Abuse of power is the worst kind of corruption. The govt. should hold the involved army officers responsible for this (also those involved in the atrocities of Aziz Market)and bring them to justice to regain some of their credibility when they talk about establishing rule of law and ending corruption in every sector.
ps: Mr. KGazi’s post may be out of context here but I had posed a simialr question, more of a theoretical nature, several times. May be we can discuss it in a new thread.
“If the consequence of protecting the human rights of a few jeopardizes the rights of millions and if these two are mutually exclusive, what is your solution as a pro-HR individual?”
February 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I am so sceptical about the saga of T.K. Why this report has not been prepared in the first place? What took him so long to tell his physical torture story? Why he did not file a case? As he is heavily politicised (die hard supporter of A.L) person twisting his torture even he might have a motive to use it against this army backed CTG. I agree that the army people might do the mental torture on him to get the information but can’t agree with his physical torture part. Below some link which may help you to know the truth about the nature of army torture on politicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlbN1b5POww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOnOgnO-NAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRBTLeOTc1U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRBTLeOTc1U
To put this army back CTG into trouble the political parties and their hard core supporters, the beneficiaries of our past political governments will try to do whatever they can i.e over exaggeration, twisting their arrest episode rather than unleashing the exact information. Before jump into any further conclusion we need to find out what is the T.K’s motive behind propagating about this army back CTG so does the army’s motive arresting (including torturing) the T.K.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Tasneem’s picture after torture speaks for itself.
This is totally unacceptable.
Why the heck doesnt he file a lawsuit against BD government in an international court?
February 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
কমেন্টঃ ১০
তো আপনি বলতে চাচ্ছেন তাসনিম ইচ্ছে করে মাইর খেয়েছে আর্মি ব্যাকড সরকারকে ফাঁদে ফেলার জন্য?
কোন কিছু লিখার আগে একটু বুঝে শুনে লিখলে ভালো হয়, সাথে দুই একটা প্রমান দিলে ও ভালো লাগতো।
তাসনিম খারাপ কিছু করে থাকলে আর্মি ব্যাকড সরকার তাকে এমনি এমনি ছেড়ে দিয়েছে ভাবেন কিভাবে?
February 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Reprehensible; Uncivil; Slimy; Heinous:
People may be ignorant of the circumstances, or of the practical impossibilities of filing a case against the very govt that perpetrates such monstrosity, or of such complex issues as the mental trauma suffered by the tortured that can take forever to heal. That’s understandable.
But brushing off “the T.K.” with having dubious motives surely reminds me of the rapist whose first line of defense is to cast doubts on the character of the raped.
[Personal attack deleted ]
February 15th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Re. Shahed I and KGazi: “If the consequence of protecting the human rights of a few jeopardizes the rights of millions and if these two are mutually exclusive, what is your solution as a pro-HR individual?”
This is an entirely false dichotomy. Protecting the rights of one individual does not jeopardize the rights of others, even if that individual is a criminal. Others may question the type of justice they’re getting (i.e., “they should have hanged him instead of sending him to jail for 5 yrs”), but their rights are not violated. This false dichotomy is based on a misreading of human rights: one person’s rights is not mutually exclusive vis-a-vis another’s.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Dear Rush,
First of all your statement that he is an Awami loyalist is something you need to proove.
Secondly based on your conclusion that because he is a supposed partisan, he will make up any stories, to show that this government is bad, means the following:
The only people whose allegation of torture against the governement we can believe are the staunch supporters of the government. Never mind the torture marks or eye witnesses after he was released. Based on that and your past posting in this board, you seem like a strong anti political party person and pro-anything-this-govt-does-is-good kind of person. So we can safely conclude that only if you or your kind, make allegations against the government of torture, we should believe that. okay great.
I hope I could establish that. Now what are the odds that you and your kind will be tortured?
Based on your performance, i’d very surprised if the government would torture you. Who are the people they are most likely to go after? Obviously, the dissenters, no? Perhaps not in your bizzaro world.
Do you see something wrong with that argument? Come on, mate — you are clutching on straws here.
Please do not defend torture. Do not defend brutality. God forbid, if it ever happens to you, there will not be many to defend you.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
i’ve always wondered who HRW are talking to. This makes it quite clear. I wonder if infact any of the meanies give the idea due credit or just get stuck on the personality issue.
the thing is with these noble causes is that they are uneven, and its realy hard to be even. HRW has the infrastructure to be geograhpically even in its missionary INGO ways. tbh that group has often served the vulnerable through history in our region embarassingly better than our own nobility.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
i am killjoy.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Reiterating the concluding remarks of #15:
First they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists,
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
February 16th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Sometimes we don’t separate one event from another and lump them together. Thereby, most of the times reach a conclusion that is probably not correct.
Rush, you did not agree to the physical torture but still provided context for its justification. What was done to Tasneem is wrong, even if Tasneem is a hardcore AL or BNP supporter. We need to condemn what is wrong even if it is done by someone we support or follow. I loved what Mridul wrote : “We all make mistakes and so does the military - we just have to learn from our mistakes and move on, and not try to justify them ….”
ps: Purana Paltan, I would love to engage in a discussion with you on another thread on this issue. But only if you are there to discuss it, not ‘dismiss’ it. I come here to share my thoughts, not to establish them. Cheers!
February 16th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Shahed I, somehow I also do not see how the proposition you set up may be feasible, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Shahed I, I don’t think in current Bangladesh we have a situation where “If the consequence of protecting the human rights of a few jeopardizes the rights of millions and if these two are mutually exclusive”. Perhaps you could elaborate.
The dichotomy you describe is perhaps more relevant in cases of terrorism-related charges in the west. Have you watched the show ‘24′? In that show, the protagonist - a tough g-man named Jack Bauer - has 24 hours to save LA from a nuclear attack by terrorists, save the first black president from being killed by greedy warmongering oil firms and at the same time save his ditzy daughter from bad people. Jack faces this dichotomy - he doesn’t have the time for due process and human rights, he has to torture the bad guys to get the information. Does he face moral qualms?
Well, his actions are justified on the basis of utilitarianism, which is a theory of justice that says that an act is justified if it increases overall happiness in the society. Torture the terrorist and he gets hurt, but in the process he gives information that saves the lives of millions, and those millions are clearly happier to be alive. Hence, utilitarians would say that torturing under such circumstances is okay.
Okay, so a few really nasty folks who like to blow up cities versus millions of innocent folks in LA - the happiness accounting is pretty obvious. Or is it? Who is to say that death and destruction in America does not provide pleasure to people in other parts of the world? Who is to say that the sum of those happiness is not greater than the sum of the happiness of those who lived because of the torture (and this is assuming that torture worked to begin with).
And to take this further, why stop at torture? Why not reintroduce gladiatorial contests to be held in Yankee stadium? See the problem with utilitarianism?
The other theory of justice comes from a German fellow named Kant. His big idea was that you cannot treat individuals as means to an end because each individual is an end in themselves. So Kant would have said that under no circumstances can you allow torture. Modern HR activitists are essentially ideological heirs of Kant, so I don’t think you’ll find many of them saying ‘Well done Jack Bauer’.
To be sure, there are more twists than this. The twist is this: should a society be based on justice (whether rights based or utility based) alone? The idea that justice should be the fundamental foundation of society is a relatively new thing in human history. It is a modern thing, it is also something conceived of in the west. In other civilisations in other times, society’s basis were different. In the Islamic civilisation, for example, the society is supposed to be based on duties and obligations as laid out in the Quran.
Okay, enough philosophy lesson. Perhaps you could elaborate your thoughts.
—
On a different note, I see that Tasneem’s party support has been raised. So we have a hard core Awami supporter tortured by the army. His progotishil employers and well wishers tell him to run away and shut up. When he opens his mouth, who carries the news in Bangladesh?
http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/2008/02/15/fullnews.asp?News_ID=67170&sec=1
Lenin is alleged to have coined the term ‘useful idiots’ to describe Soviet sympathisers in the west. Well, while progotishil are busy being useful - whether believing in the anti-corruption drive, prospect of war crimes trial or the generals’ commitment to Bangabandhu’r adorsho - outfits like Naya Diganta are gaining credence.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Jyoti,
As I have said before, my question is more of a theoretical nature. I am not trying to justify anybody’s action. But I have to admit, this question spurred from the current situations in Bangladesh and is purely a moral dilemma for me. Remember the doctor in Decalogue?
When I think of the corrupt leaders in our country who have violated the rights of millions, I tend to overlook violation of their rights and whether due processes are being followed or not. Because I feel that the laws of our land failed to protect the rights of the mass and they were held hostage by the few. Given the opportunity, these politicians will do the same and I don’t see how they can be lawfully restrained in the foreseeable future. But, of course, the rational side of me does not support this process and I feel that I should take stand against it.
I never consider myself as an HR activist, but would like to think myself as a pro-HR person. But at the end, I guess I am just a simple person who’s torn between logic and emotions. You’ve given a good example and here is my confession. Emotionally I am extremely inclined to say ‘ Well done, Jack Bauer.’ What would you say to him?
February 16th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Someone in a different thread downplayed alleged torture on Tareq Rahman as it was only reported in Daily Nayadiganta.
I see a similar attempt in comments number 5 and 10. An attempt to either justify or ignore torture claims. The tactic is the same. Using either unsubstantiated allegations like spying, political activism, hidden nefarious intentions, corruption or questioning the source of the information.
Let’s denounce all kind of torture on everybody. And please lets not be selective in our condemnation of torture based on their political affiliation.
*********************************
On a different note, I do not agree with the quoted word ” Mistake” via Mridul. A crime should not be softened up as mistakes. Nobody made any mistake here.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
[...] recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on the torture of CNN reporter Tasneem Khalil at the hands of the DGFI laid bare the grisly network of torture and forced interrogation that has [...]
February 17th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Shahed I, frankly, I’d try to stay as far away from Jack Bauer as possible. I’m afraid he might suspect me of something or other and beat me up. And in Bangladesh, I’m afraid I’m more likely to be like your artist friend, and I could do without ‘bhalo hoye jao’ sobok from a 25 year old army captain.:(
More seriously though, I think John Rawls’s theories of justice sum up a standard pro-HR position pretty well.
1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
Not relevant to this discussion, but for the sake of completeness, I personally find Nozick’s critique of Rawls’s 2nd point - that any distribution is just provided it comes about through free exchange - very attractive.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:27 am
While we wait for the facts to come out, let’s also recall the victims of Tareq Rahman’s BNP, such as Shahriar Kabir and Mahiuddin Khan Alamgir, who were tortured by the same DGFI during the early days of BNP-Jamaat’s phenomenally fascist coalition, for the same old crime of “anti-state activities.”
February 17th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Re # 26, there is no need to stop at mere recollection, if any of these two men feel upto it, they should sue any one who they feel tortured them. If they don’t feel sufficient respect for Bangladesh’s judiciary, there is always the International Court of Justice.
While I do not find silk panjabis more significant than broken ribs, I personally feel that the formation of RAB was the BNP government’s biggest indiscretion and has directly contributed to the manifold HR violations happening throughout our country currently. RAB established in a whole generation of military officers a contempt of the laws of our country and the sense that they could operate above said laws. It also established in them a sense of exceptionalism indicating that only they had the best interests of our nation at heart.
If I may weign in, Jyoti bhai, Jack Bauer is a dangerous psycopath, who to me is not much different from Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The later operates through his own crazed logic, the former has a government apparatus behind him. Bauer is ultimately, a weak person, as all who operate exclusively believing in the supremacy of might are weak.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:22 am
#26,
So does it mean that as TR’s party was responsible for arresting Shahriar Kabir and Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, it is Ok to torture Tareq Rahman?
I don’t see any difference with your thinking and the thinking in comment #10.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Please condemn any torture on anybody, not just on ‘my party people’. Please see below:
“Detained BNP Senior Joint Secretary General Tarique Rahman yesterday appealed to a Dhaka court to ensure his security claiming he was “inhumanly tortured” in the name of interrogation while he was on remand in connection with a corruption case.”
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=18579
February 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Rumi (#28), no, it’s NOT okay. I think I was quite broad and sweeping on that in #3. Since you brought up the names of your party people on this page, I felt to compelled to bring up mine here, esp since they were the victims of the former, and it is so ironic. That’s all.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
#30,
Thanks for finally condemning torture on politicians including Tareq Rahman. Even Amnesty International failed to do that.
Lets condemn all sort of torture and all form of DGFI crime.
I don’t know what is my ‘party’. But I would not spoil this blogpost going into that discussion.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Jyoti,
So you are telling me if you are caught in a position of saving millions of people from getting nuked and saving your daughter’s life while the clock is ticking, you still would not torture that single person because it is a violation of his human rights! Wow..may be i’m reading too much into it. But thanks for those refs, I need to study a bit on it.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Just the overwhelming sympathy towards one person, judging by the repeated mention of his name in a frequency way out of proportion, is what makes me suspicious of the people’s motives here.
Whereas there are at least half a dozen names of DGFI torture victims one could bring up here… none of whom enjoyed the power and privilege that your favorite poster-child did, and each one of them suffered because they fought/stood for causes much nobler than making a fortune or peddling political influence.
The AI chief did speak up against all HR violation, and for that got accused of coming to the defense of her “in-law.” Still, people like Rumi are not satisfied because your favorite party-man’s name was not specifically mentioned. And yet you claim you don’t know what your party is. Perhaps you really think we are all that naive here…
February 18th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Shahed I (32), I’m not saying anything at all about what I might do if I am caught in a position of saving millions of people from getting nuked and saving my daughter’s life while the clock is ticking. I don’t think the question was what either of us would do we were put on the spot. I was discussing whether Jack Bauer’s actions can be justified, and if so, on what grounds? From there, you said if you met him, you’d probably thank him. I said I’d run away from him. What I (or you or anyone else) would do in his shoes is an entirely different question.
But since you raise that question, let’s see if we can answer it. The first thing is to separate out the two choices Jack Bauer faces: torture to save LA; and torture to save his daughter. The two are very distinct choices.
I cannot tell you categorically that faced with the choice of torturing to save LA what I would do. I can tell you this much though, if I did torture, then I’d do so knowing and accepting that I have committed a grave moral wrong. It would make me a weak person. It would make me a moral coward. But it wouldn’t make torture right.
If the choice was torture to save my daughter, then I’m even less sure what I’d do. And I don’t know how bad I’d feel making that choice. And I think this points to a key issue about moral dilemmas. Even if we all agree on how to judge whether an action is morally right (utilitarianism vs rights-based stuff), there is still an issue of what weight do we give to different individuals when we do our calculations. I don’t have kids, but if a father tells me that he values his daughter exactly the same way he values a psychopath who’s threatening to hurt her, I’m not sure I’d believe him.
We have laws and states and civilisation so that we don’t have to face this kind of moral dilemma. Modern states are supposed to take away the private need to protect one’s kins, or the private urge for vengeance, and put it in some public authority. And that public authority is not supposed to use that power, that monopoly of violence, willy nilly. States that are based on Rawls’s or Nozick’s notion of justice would not hire someone like Jack Bauer to begin with. And if his daughter got kidnapped, the case would be dealt by some law enforcement officer who would find a non-torture way of saving her.
This notion of justice-based society is not the only way to organise our lives. As I said, Islamic civilisation has different notions. So might other, pre-Modern, civilsations. I don’t know. So it is perfectly fine to say that ‘there’s more to life than rights’. But if we claim to believe in human rights - as Drishtipat does - there is no way we can thank Jack Bauer or condone what was done to Tasneem.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Yes if you think that way, you are naive, ( who else you are including by mentioning we all?) .
And a debate is not possible who thinks such way.
And don’t look for peoples’ hidden motives.
People have been reprimanded in this same thread for looking for hidden motives.
Again, so far I have refrained from and I plan to refrain from digressing to a different debate in this blog post on DGFI torture.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I’m a bit confused about comment # 33. Shouldn’t the point be to bring in what has happened to as many people as possible, to expose what is, I believe, the current military government’s explicit policy rather than isolated incidents?
Does the torture of a BNP man negate the pain of an AL man? Or that of an AL man that of a Jamaat man?
What are the “frequency” and the “proportion” that we should be mindful of when bringing up cases of torture? Are people who have enjoyed “power and privilege” more deserving of being tortured? Are they more immune to pain? Do their families feel less anguish when such torture is inflicted?
February 18th, 2008 at 6:17 am
You’re right, I shouldn’t be looking for hidden motives here… it’s quite obvious and blatant!
February 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Let’s also hope Tareq Rahman and his henchman Mamun will set an example and “sue any one who they feel tortured them. If they don’t feel sufficient respect for Bangladesh’s judiciary, there is always the International Court of Justice.”
February 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
No further comments comparing tortures on tareq rahman will be allowed.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Does anyone know how much torture is allowed during interrogation while in army/police custody? Is there any law on this in Bangladesh? I know some form of “interrogation technique” is allowed everywhere for people in custody before they’re taken to court.
Common people will detest it when their favourite people receives this “technique” and rejoice when the people from opposite camp receives it. The oppressed will never speak on behalf of the oppressors. That is just human nature. Debating who deserve the “technique” and who don’t is just wasting time.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Jyoti,
I don’t condone what was done to Tasneem. I wish you didn’t pull him into this.
The utopian justice-based system you described is non-existent and we do face moral dilemma’s everyday even in the most developed countries. The choice we make is who we are. I do agree that we should always try to make it better.
If I have 10 minutes in my hand and I have to torture this person to save millions. I would do it. I don’t consider that morally wrong.
But anyway, the situation I was trying to discuss is extreme and very unlikely in regular times. I hope no one will try to draw any inferences in favor of torture in custody from this.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I’m sorry shuddho, “some form of ‘interrogation technique’” is not allowed everywhere for people in custody. At least in the United States, the accused has the right to a lawyer (Amendment VI, I believe) before any confession or the confession is stricken and unable to be used in a court of law. Also, Amendment VIII prohibits any sort of cruel and unusual punishment; I am quite sure torture can be considered both cruel and unusual.
I digress from Bangaladesh, however. Bangladesh did ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel Punishment in 1998 excluding paragraph 14, which basically forced governments to repay victims of torture. So, Bangladesh pretty much sidestepped out of that one. Is there any other place where a country might have written down anything against torture? Maybe…um…the Constitution?
“Article 35(5) — No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.”
So the answer your question, the amount of torture allowed during interrogation is–none.
Now, you state that common people will “detest…when their favorite people receives [torture] and rejoice when the opposite camp receives it.” To that, I simply have to point to Abu Ghraib. I am quite sure that no American sympathized with the US soldiers that tortured the Iraqis. The US government did not at least; twelve soldiers were convicted on various charges.
Sure, common people might not speak against their oppressors now. It is “human nature,” as you put it. Yet, the point of a human rights organization is not only to change the sentiments of the government but also of the people. One can find that human nature is actually quite malleable at times.
Human rights are rights entitled to all citizens, whether it is Tareq Zia or Tasneem Khalil. If different rights are given to different people, then they are simply not human rights. Debating who deserve “the technique” is a waste of time. Simply put, “no one” deserves torture.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
#42 is an excellent summation of a lot of pertinent points, which I have been trying to tie together in my haphazard and piecemeal manner.
Let’s all agree to adhere to the golden rule, and make a difference.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:25 am
#37, I am surprised that first this offensive comment goes past moderation and then the issue is banned from the thread.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Shahed I, I didn’t mean to suggest you condoned what was done to Tasneem. Sorry if I came across that way.
But the point about Jack Bauer is still valid. If we claim to believe in HR, then we cannot say ‘thank you Jack Bauer’. As I’ve said many times, rights are not the only way to think about morality. And reasonable people can agree to disagree on these things.
As for whether Rawlsian justice is utopia - perhaps. I thought we were discussing theory. And Rawls’s theories are normative ones - what should society look like, not what is. Again, reasonable people can agree to disagree.
Shayon (42), thanks for the reference to Bangladeshi constitution.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I’m puzzled by Shayon’s assertion that no on the US supports torture. Abu Gharib happened because of indirect approval by the White House, as we found out through the denials and lies of the ousted Attorney General Gonzalez. In fact, a huge majority of President Bush’s supporters, including the President himself, still claim the govt has the right to torture, esp if the victim happens to be an unlawful combatant (read Arabs and Afghanistanis). See what’s happening in Guantanamo, or in various other countries where CIA carried out torture taking advantage of their lax laws (referred to as “rendition”).
I see some reference to the “ticking bomb argument” on this page; just google it (with the quotes) and within the first 5 hits you will find excellent refutations of this dumb idea that Bush supporters still cling to.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Rumi (#44) is right again (and this time I imply no sarcasm) — #37 should not have gotten through.
My apologies for having taxed the moderator’s attention and judgement so unreasonably.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
#42
Shayon,
First of all, U.S.’ own record of torture in custody is not very good. The debate over water boarding can be taken as example. One big difference between a developed country(USA) and a country like ours (Bangladesh) is that their govt is somewhat afraid of the media. They can’t ignore the huge impact of the media on people’s mind. Once an unjust act of the govt is widely publicized in the media, the govt will at least try to do some damage control. Whereas in Bangladesh, the govt will threaten the media instead. Even during the rule of the past govt, Drishtipat was blamed for covering material that supposedly ruined the “image” of the govt abroad. Can you imagine anything like Jon Stewart’s Daily Show in the TV Channels of Bangladesh?
Secondly, you mentioned constitution. Under the constitution, the state of emergency suspends the fundamental rights of our citizens. Article 141B of Bangladesh constitution states that “the issuance of proclamation of emergency automatically suspends the operation of the fundamental rights to freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience, and of speech, freedom of profession and occupation and rights to property.” Basically, under emergency rule, you can’t even protest the govt’s unjust acts. Emergency rule is against everything human rights stand for. HRW reported last August, “Several newspapers and television networks reported that security forces beat their journalists while they were gathering information on the demonstrations, and some journalists were detained and beaten in custody. The Daily Star newspaper, for example, said that on August 23 two policemen beat its reporter Kamrul Hasan Khan with sticks on the university campus. Police also beat reporters from the daily Samakal, from a private TV channel Baisakhi and from the online news portal http://www.bdnews24.com, some of them after they were detained in police stations.”
Tasneem Khalil was a human right activist and publicized the death of Choles in custody and see what happened to him. When the sword is mightier than the pen, there is nothing much we can do. The pressure from the human right activists make them an easy prey of the mighty. When it comes to the question of safety during an autocratic rule, the role of the human right activists is not so simple as “change the sentiments of not only the government but also of the people”.
Lopa
February 19th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I can imagine something like The Daily Show on Bangladeshi TV Channels. Only by imagining the possibilities of free speech, the power to freely practice religion, the idea to protest against a government action peacefully, can actual changes occur. The creators of Bangladeshi newspapers and other media saw this point. They wanted to change their country to become a more democratic society. Even though they are shut down, they do attempt to try their nation instead of looking at the pessimistic, half-empty glass reasoning of #48.
As for Abu Ghraib, I believe there was a slight misunderstanding. I meant the majority of citizens did not agree with the tortures of the prisons. Of course, the government was responsible for the actions, so there was some oversight there. And, I am quite sure there are many human rights violations uncovered by the media in Iraq and other United States facilities with full knowledge of top officials. Still, a majority of senators and congressman have denounced the actions. And with any topic, there will always be those against or for it.
Emergency rule occurs when a government is not doing its necessary job. There would be no emergency rule if government officials actually acted for the benefit of the people instead of their own pockets. Once Bangladesh gains politicians like such, then human rights as a whole will become much more addresable. Until then, a cyclic trend of uprisings and corruption will continue.
I believe the saying is that the “pen is mightier than the sword,” not the other way around. Never will military force ever quash the power of the media. Now, events like what happened to Tasneem Khalil might occur. Yet, the media’s job is to broadcast these occurences and garner even more support against the military rule. There is an inherent risk of following this job, as there is with any sort of criticism against a powerful figure. Yet, the power of the people is the strongest force. If the people rise against government, there is nothing the government can do since the government is an entity that governs the very same people. So, it is as simple as changing the “sentiments of the people.” The difficult task is the actual means of carrying out the job.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
#50
“Yet, the power of the people is the strongest force. If the people rise against government, there is nothing the government can do since the government is an entity that governs the very same people.”
Can’t agree more. Way to go !!!
February 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Torturing dissenters is not just a military phenomenon; it would be safe to assume that during democratic rule, many outspoken individuals face the full brunt of the security forces, we all know what RAB was like during BNP rule.
If we were to generalise, it is the mind set of the ruling class in Bangladesh to crush anyone or any thoughts that threatens them or their power.
So those of you who think dethroning this unelected govt will solve all our human right issues are not being realistic, rather we should be applying pressure on whichever government is in power, to carry out full investigation on any human right violation.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Here a good article on Progressive Bangladesh how “patriotism” is defined by these torturers:
http://www.progressivebangladesh.org/index.php
February 20th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Jyoti, regarding the Jack Bauer’s discussion you were talking about what an individual might do when faced with those choices. Now, if you are heading a state which is responsible for the safety of the population of a country and if it faces the Jack Bauer scenario can someone suggest what options are available?
Furthermore, if we take the Bangladesh scenario, the capture of Bangla bhai & gang or the recent unearthing of 41 grenades from a pond, there must been some torture carried out by the intelligence agencies to make those missions successful. While we hail the end result, do we condemn the method used? If yes then what other options are there?
I am not trying to justify torture here but I would like understand what other realistic alternatives are there if you are the state and you are entrusted with the general safety of the citizens in these extreme scenarios.
On another note, torture and other anti-human right activities is prevalent by most intelligence agencies especially in the west and the mature democracies. These agencies usually carry out the dirty work of the state. For example, Castro who is in the news recently, CIA has made several assassination attempts on him in the past. Same can be said about MI6, KGB. Israel systematically tortures & assassinates individuals and justifies it as necessary for the safety of its citizens. I not defending torture here but providing a context for those who might think it’s a Bangladesh military or a south asian phenomena. Its an unfortunate reality and it must be protested without bringing in the politics of military vs democracy.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Re # 46, I am personally opposed to death penalties. In my opinion the execution of Bangla Bhai and the others was a grave mistake. I think - alive but incarcerated for life, these men would have been punished more fittingly; and also been a deterrent to any of those who wanted to follow their paths. This has also obscured the truth about JMB and its origins to a great extent.
Would you like to provide a more detailed picture of how those administrating BD may face a Jack Bauer situation? The question of preventing the detonation of a nuclear bomb in a city has become like the question of whether one would support war if it was against Adolf Hitler: imperfect dichotomies designed to snag the simple-minded. In the case of Hitler, often the people who most enthusiastically observed his rise to power were the most fervent advocates of total war measures like the fire-bombing of Dresden. In the case of the nuclear bomb scenario, when is the last time that ever happened? Will torturing someone, whose information may or may not lead to the unarming of the bomb in time, cover up for the enormouse failure of security forces that made this situation possible in the first place?
I apologize in advance if I inserted my comment regarding a question that was regarded to someone else. It just feels as if Jack Bauer is a poor excuse for the standards by which we should think about HR.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 am
Again, simple question from the simple-minded, if you are facing an adverse crisis you look at options and choose which ones will most likely succeed. We are saying torture is no-no, so what are some of the other alternatives?
We all know what the problems are, I was looking for some realistic solutions.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Re #56, if facing an adverse crisis, you take the time to tease the required information out of an enemy. What if you only have one hour to get the information? Well, the person you’re torturing also knows that he just needs to hold out for an hour, so torture becomes unproductive anyways.
These aren’t secrets, the futility of torture as effective remedy for anything except a desire for sadism has been known in staff colleges, for decades, all around the world. During, WWII, both British and German master interrogators eschewed any physical coercion completely, not because of charity, but because they understood its ineffectiveness.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
E.H: In an immediate crisis of a personal nature you act in a way that your intellectual and moral maturity guides you for your survival instincts. Killing your aggressor (if you have the means and you can’t run away) in self-defense is permitted by virtually every religion and every legal system. But threatening to kill someone because you suspect him to have abducted your close ones would still be a No! No! You go seek help from law enforcement for that. And no, you cannot kill someone even if you know with 99.99% certainty that s/he is going kill you or a loved one in future.
Now let me try and address your original, broader question: What are the realistic options for a state facing these kinds of crises? I’d say, by today’s internationally accepted standards, even a state cannot take “pre-emptive actions”… as Hitler or Bush claimed to have done. (The difference between Hitler and Bush is, however, that such standards were not formally recognized at Hitler’s time, while they have been the very foundation of the modern international society since.)
The state can only provide legal protection for its individual citizens (with deterrents like capital punishment for killing, e.g. but it doesn’t help you if you’re already dead).
But the state can also do some things to protect its citizenry from mass-murdering terrorist types (PROVIDING it has the political will to do so). For starters, it can beef up its intelligence network (using surveillance: electronic, financial, or personnel on the ground) to monitor and track suspicious and illegal or subversive activities. (A relevant digression: The provision for torture actually encourages sloppy work by law enforcement/intelligence agencies — and it only affords their sadist elements an excuse for gratuitous pleasure, instead of requiring them to methodically seek really useful data to be used as admissible evidence in a court of law. Shaibal Shaha Partha’s sad and extremely unfortunate but totally avoidable fate is a case in point.)
And to successfully employ intelligence, the state will need the legal tools AND checks and balances AS MUCH AS it will need sophisticated technology.
So, obviously I don’t mean to say the state should start reading everybody’s email. That’d be impractical and inefficient, in addition to being immoral and open to abuse by state employees and political opponents alike — in fact the latter may be inevitable. But there should be enough “flags” in place, so that if there’s some unusual financial activity in a bank account, or trucks delivering loads in the dark in the most unexpected places, those can be further investigated. Infiltration of semi-political and political outfits is a routine practice amongst civil and uncivil govts around the world, democratic or not. But again, active encouragement to commit an act of subversion just to catch a “suspected bad guy red-handed” would be unethical and not at all permissible, whereas the covert state agents should be going along with the suspected subversive elements to the point where they have gathered enough evidence but can stop any serious damage.
I have given you my two cents from the viewpoint of an individual who believes very strongly in privacy and civil rights. Feel free to discuss… but I can assure you, you’ll not find any simple and guaranteed solution that’s also acceptable by one and all.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
NiRBashito
Thank you for the detailed analysis. I agree that there is no alternative than strengthening the proactive intelligence but as you have mentioned that also is a little complex because you don’t want to infringe on privacy. Note this is all preemptive work on part of the state and as you have mentioned the state cannot monitor everybody and you will bound have to occasional slip ups such as the individuals who carried out the UK bombings. On those rare occasions we can try teasing it out [as tacit suggested] or torture which may or may not work.
As you have concluded and that’s what I was trying to get at that it’s a very difficult problem and the solutions are not straight forward and we must recognize this. And unfortunately, in those cases the requirements of the state comes in conflict with human rights.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Lest you get the impression that on rare occasions “some” torture may be permissible, let me reiterate here, emphatically, that ABSOLUTELY no torture should be allowed, whether by the state law enforcement or by any of its military wings.
Once you start down the slippery slope, individuals can start rationalizing with his/her own perceived “reasonable pain limits” and you know how that ended up with the Dick Cheney method of water-boarding or an Alberto Gonzalez Memo to the White House “okaying violation of the Geneva Conventions” now that the enemy is no longer German or Russian (read white Caucasian… why do we have to resort to fictional/Hollywood characters when such fine real examples abound?).
One phrase that comes up often in the discussion of the “ticking bomb argument” is “salami slicing”: a phenomena whereby different state agencies/individuals extend their limits and arguments for those methods of “teasing out” info as well as for the definitions of those “rare occasions” — little bit by bit, or very thin slices, — and pretty soon there is no salami left i.e. we have little or zero resistance to full blown medieval barbarism by the state.
Please Google the stuff as I had suggested in #47 if you haven’t done so already. Esp the Journal of Applied Philosophy article, a must read (and end of any further discussion in this regard in my view… although with philosophers that is an impossibility; so that’s where our moral standpoint intervenes) and the Slate magazine article. Also see how Israel justifies and uses torture on a routine basis on hapless young Palestinian people caught in the middle, with the full approval of their legal system and judges…
February 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I’m sorry I hit the “submit…” button without finishing my thought: the ellipses at the end should be replaced with
as it [the Israeli govt] claims “extraneous circumstances” which E.H. refers to as “rare occasions”.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
One more correction for EH(#59): What I have suggested (#58) as possible courses of actions for the state in order to foil terrorist plots do not fall under the definition of “preemptive actions”; as a HR proponent, I can only expect *preventive* measures. Preemptive implies acts of aggression/torture with the *belief* that someone may or will commit a crime in the future, however fact-based that belief may be or however near that future may be. (If the state has enough incontrovertible evidence, it can go to the court and get a conviction.)
Preemptive acts/attacks are unacceptable, uncivilized, unethical, and in fact illegal and immoral for signatories to one of the original UN charters (and hence the irony of Bush’s preemptive aggression of Iraq as opposed to Hitler’s attack on its neighbors).
Preventive measures include the possibility of arresting a suspect and questioning him (without torture and degrading/dehumanizing treatment). I’ll leave it to psychologists and philosophers to figure out a way to “tease out info” in a humane, civil manner.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Hate to be hogging all the space here — but this post-Oscar news just came to my attention, about the winning documentary this year Taxi to the Dark Side.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I meant to use ‘preventive’.