This House believes that torture is only acceptable under legal supervision

TIM SEBASTIAN
Ladies and gentlemen, a very good evening to you and welcome to the last in this current series of Doha Debates sponsored by the Qatar Foundation. The issue of torture has come into sharp focus since 9/11, with allegations of cruel treatment in Iraq, in Guantanamo Bay and in secret American detention centres. The fact is that despite laws and international conventions, torture is widespread, with no protection at all for the victims, so should it be outlawed in every case? Is it one of the red lines that no society should ever cross, or are there competing principles here? Should those who seek to destroy societies enjoy the same rights as those who would live in them peacefully? Can torture be tolerated under very narrowly defined conditions, with judicial and medical supervision solely to save lives? That is the subject we're discussing tonight with our motion " This House believes torture is only acceptable under legal supervision." Well, speaking for the motion, Khawar Qureshi. He's a senior barrister and Queen's Counsel practising in London. He's acted for numerous governments on issues ranging from torture, terrorism and the extradition of Al Qaeda members. He's a visiting lecturer in international law at King's College, London. Also for the motion, Colonel Bob Stewart. He was the first British commander of UN Forces in Bosnia, and the former Chief of Policy at NATO's supreme headquarters in Europe. He is now a consultant on security and intelligence matters. Against the motion, Freshta Raper. She's an Iraqi Kurd from Halabja who was arrested and tortured in Iraq by Saddam Hussein's security forces. She fled the country and moved to Britain in 1990. She's now Director of Learning at a secondary school in London. And with her is Irene Khan. She's been Secretary General of Amnesty International since 2001. She's the first woman, first Asian and first Muslim to head the organisation, and she's been voted one of the hundred most influential Asians in the UK. Ladies and gentlemen, our panel. So now let me call first on Khawar Qureshi to speak for the motion please.

KHAWAR QURESHI
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I speak on behalf of this motion with a heavy heart. I do so because the motion is trying to create a bridge between the ideal and reality. We all know that torture has been forbidden for some time. There are no ifs or buts, yet the stark reality is that there are states engaging in the use of coercive interrogation techniques to extract information from individuals, maintaining that by doing so they are saving many innocent lives, resorting to kidnap, sub-contracting of interrogation or even the creation of ghastly black holes such as Guantanamo Bay. This choice is simple; a very simple choice exists for all of it. Do we maintain that the states must adhere to absolute standards and thereby allow them the possibility to exploit the legal vacuum that exists between the ideal and the reality, or do we recognise what is going on, however abhorrent it may be, and seek to provide legal safeguards for a process that otherwise provides no protection for the individuals who are subject to it. My choice is for the latter and I urge you to support this motion. Thank you.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Khawar Qureshi, thank you very much indeed. So principles are just movable feasts, you junk them when the going gets tough?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you're proposing to junk this one?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all. What we're recognising is that there are states that have decided that there is a balance that's taking place, in the interest of necessity, in pursuit of saving lives, and there is concrete evidence that in certain circumstances, lives have been saved by the use of interrogation techniques, however regrettable they may be. The issue is simply to ensure that states have to provide legal safeguards where there are none at present.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But if everybody provides the legal safeguards they're supposed to, the world would be a very different place. You're providing rules that are absolutely unenforceable.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All the rules so far are bent. Why introduce a new generation of rules that are going to be bent as well? Where are the safeguards for the victims here?
KHAWAR QURESHI
The Convention Against Torture was created on sound principles. It is pursuing sound principles. Normal organisations like Amnesty International ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you intend to junk the UN Convention Against Torture... .
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all.
TIM SEBASTIAN
...which says no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other emergency can be evoked as a justification for torture.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You are saying there's a justification for torture.
KHAWAR QURESHI
No. I said there are no ifs or buts. If torture is to take place, which it is, it's not justified but if it is to take place, better that there be some legal safeguards for individuals because we recognise what's going on ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
What legal safeguards?
KHAWAR QURESHI
You could have a system where warrants have to be applied for to use coercive interrogation techniques. That's one proposal.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And how does it work? You have some hunch, you have some piece of intelligence. We know how accurate that is these days. You start torturing somebody, you pull their fingernails out, at what point are they supposed to tell you that they don't know anything? How far does this grisly process have to go before someone can prove their innocence?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Plainly what one isn't advocating is an exception that becomes the rule.
TIM SEBASTIAN
No, but I want to know how this particular process works. How do you go on torturing someone till you are satisfied that they don't know the piece of information that you say you want from them?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Where are the safeguards for the victims then?
KHAWAR QURESHI
The state has to provide compelling evidence that an individual is implicated in serious ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
We thought there was compelling evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that doesn't seem now to be the case, does it?
KHAWAR QURESHI
The whole point is, that was never tested by a legal process.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Khawar Qureshi, thank you very much indeed. Could I ask please Freshta Raper to speak against the motion?

FRESHTA RAPER
Good evening, everyone. I would like to speak as a first-hand witness subjected to the most degraded, inhuman action that none of you, none of us as human beings, ever deserves to be in a position that someone like me and thousands like me have been subjected to. It is easy to speak up, give us a big word from the big position, but you haven't got the tiniest clue what it feels like to be in a dark hole and extremely scared and frightened and you've been subjected to the most humiliating and degrading action, you are opposite tens of so-called men who have been trained to be cruel, senseless, inhuman, unjustified. They try to do any act and they put you in a position, for many, many years after that you feel you are so low, so cheap, you deserve what you've been through. They will rob you from dignity, they will rob you from your self-respect, they will rob you from humanity. It is not easy to be there and when you are there, if any of you here ever experience one day what I have experienced, you will know what I am talking about and where exactly I come from. Torture is torture, is immoral, is inhuman. No human being in this world should ever be allowed to raise a hand on another human being, because nobody knows apart from the victim of torture what sort of negative impact torture has on an individual. I speak as a woman and I speak as a mother. And when everyone knows what it's like when they put you in front of ten men, when they do anything in their power to degrade you, to make you feel nothing, before even you speak up, before they even know whether you are guilty or innocent. Nobody knows apart of these people that have ever experienced, the negative impact, it will be a permanent scar and trace you for life, that permanent scar, no matter how much you try to move on, and all the time it's there. There is no justification in the entire world for any supervision to legalise that immoral action, no matter what we say in the world, it will be a wide door open to abuse for many, many countries. And for one guilty individual who will be tortured, millions of innocent people have to go through that cruelty and I really beg the audience, whoever has had any experience with a relative or they have ever read anything about torture, they will think twice before voting for this motion. We have to, all of us, shout very loudly together and put a stop to torture, and we will never allow any dictatorship in the world ever, we do not give them ammunition to use the torture and abuse hundreds and thousands of innocent people, and destroy hundreds and thousand families and the society of the entire country.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Freshta Raper, thank you very much indeed. I'm sure that nobody who has listened to your experiences could expect you to vote any other way on this motion, but this is not merely a debate about whether torture is wanted or it's good or it's bad. It's about conflicting principles, isn't it, the need to save lives measured against the need to treat all people humanely. Is it not more important to save lives?
FRESHTA RAPER
It is important to save lives, but there are better ways to save lives.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But if it came down to a choice, if it comes down to a choice.
FRESHTA RAPER
There is a choice, there is a choice and the choice can, the powerful world can help the deprived area and the people with a social justice, and help them to tackle the poverty, help them to tackle the ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But this is not the instance that we're necessarily talking about. I'm asking does not the saving of lives come before anything else including the inflicting of pain on people?
FRESHTA RAPER
But how can anyone be sure when a person has been subjected to torture, no matter how much intelligence they will gather ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But if you're as sure as you can be and if someone informs you that they have carried out a terrorist attack and they're waiting for the results of it to blow up in a crowded area, are you going to sit there and wait for this person's act to come true?
FRESHTA RAPER
A million times they go wrong, million times they get it wrong.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Would you authorise torture if you thought the results would save your children?
FRESHTA RAPER
Never, never.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Not even to save your children?
FRESHTA RAPER
Never, never. No human being should deserve, no human being in this world should deserve to go through torture, no matter what they are doing.
TIM SEBASTIAN
When even though you know that torture goes on everywhere, always has, always will, would you miss this chance to regulate it, in some way, to save some victims? To give victims a voice and some rights which they don't have at the moment, you'd miss this chance?
FRESHTA RAPER
There won't be a saving, we will save the world, we will save the children, we will save them if we're helping the people who are committing the terrorism, why do they commit it in the first place, why are people so angry, why in the first place, why don't they use a better way to tackle that problem than spending a lot of money and resources by using and legalising torture and opening the wide door to abuse.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Freshta Raper, thank you very much indeed. Can we please ask Bob Stewart to speak for the motion.

BOB STEWART
I, like Mr. Qureshi, support this motion but I do so with little relish. The reason I support the motion is because of my own experience, and quite frankly both of us are very sorry to hear of your experience Freshta and we support you absolutely. But it's not that. My own experience, and I'm going to talk about Northern Ireland, I'm going to talk about 6th December 1982 when I was a young major, when after a bomb I was inside a bomb site within 30 seconds, and there I found a young girl of 18, no legs, one arm. I knelt down beside her, I was horrified, I was almost sick. She was speaking, she was conscious. She didn't seem to be in pain. She asked me what had happened, I told her it had been a bomb. She asked me whether she was going to die, and I said, 'Yes, I think you will,' and she asked me to hold her, as I did, and she died. I was destroyed, and I was the Incident Commander. It's not that, it's the fact that two weeks later we discovered, we, the British Army, discovered that the man who'd planned that attack was actually arrested by us at the time. Indeed, he boasted about it, and he perhaps had those people that planted that bomb come and visit him, then they went out and they did this outrage. We were not allowed, under any rule whatsoever, to harm, touch or coerce. I would love, in retrospect, to have had a bit more power to coerce this man, because if I'd done so, or we'd done so, perhaps, just perhaps, many lives, there were 17 killed that night and of course it's just an example, and 50 wounded, perhaps lives would have been saved, and that's the only argument we can really advance, that we can possibly save lives. Because we on this side of the house do not like torture, hate it in fact, but the fact of the matter is that sometimes, Freshta has said she wouldn't allow torture to save her family, I don't think I'd be so altruistic. I think it is idealistic in all places to argue that when we are faced with such a horrid decision as that, that all of us would take the high ground. I don't think I would have that moral courage if it was my family, or indeed thousands of people, and indeed torture doesn't necessarily mean death, it just means not death but lots of people can die, and it has been proved that sometimes information can be extracted that can save a lot of people. Please don't deny people the option to use this technique to stop a lot of people dying. I hate it but we've got to live with it sometimes. Thank you.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Bob Stewart, thank you very much. You were a soldier, you operated in Bosnia, you operated in Northern Ireland. Did you ever break the rules on torture?
BOB STEWART
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You sailed close to the wind?
BOB STEWART
Yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Roughed somebody up?
BOB STEWART
No, I never roughed someone up.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you've seen it happen.
BOB STEWART
I have seen it happen, and the British Army is not without fault.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So rules do get broken?
BOB STEWART
Of course they do.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So even if you have a situation where there is judicial supervision, those rules can be broken too?
BOB STEWART
They could be bent and they could be broken.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And they probably would be.
BOB STEWART
It may well happen, Mr. Sebastian, it may well happen, but the fact of the matter is...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's a green light, taking people further away from their principles, isn't it?
BOB STEWART
I think everyone should have principles, and I think we all hate torture, everyone here. No-one's going to say they want torture, but I'm just saying, 'Look, please don't deny that option if we need to take an option like that.' Say this debate actually throughout the world stopped anyone using any coercive technique whatsoever, and then we had an instance where coercion might have saved thousands of people, but we're not allowed to do it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What made you different from the killers that you tried to protect people from? Wasn't it the fact that you had values that prevented you from doing what they did? Isn't that what is supposed to distinguish you from the evil people that you met on your travels? Well, you're prepared to take a step closer to their values, aren't you?
BOB STEWART
No, I'm not. I'm prepared to take a step closer to values of human decency. I do not want to see, look, let's put it this way, let's have a balance. If you take one action, how many people might die, and if you take another, how many might die? Maybe it's more moral to take an action so that less people die, perhaps coercive techniques, and under those circumstances, because death it ultimate, if you actually have less people dying, is that the most moral choice you can make?
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, Bob Stewart, thank you very much indeed. Let me please ask Irene Khan to speak against the motion.

IRENE KHAN
Well, I oppose this motion because Amnesty International has been campaigning against torture and our research shows that it must never, ever be made legal. Of all the human rights that exist, the position against torture is one of the very few that applies both in times of war and peace. Governments made the rule and they made it because they know torture is wrong morally, legally, politically and practically. Torture can never be used collectively. In states that sanction torture, it becomes widespread. Torture is an unreliable means of gathering information, because very often, more often than not, the innocent are tortured more often than not, people will say anything to stop the pain, and no amount of legal supervision can make torture efficient, effective, safe or exceptional. It will only debase the legal system, it will debase the rule of law and make it a tool of oppression rather than a system for justice, and do you trust the law to control torture in countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Syria? Do you want to give them more encouragement? Do you trust your government to torture their own friends as well as their opponents? So this myth about torturing a few to save many lives is really a myth. The choice rarely occurs, and when it occurs there are other ways of gaining intelligence. In fact torture actually makes it difficult to gain intelligence in the proper way, because it undermines confidence of communities, it feeds grievances, it creates a recruiting ground for terrorism. Torture is the moral equivalent of terror, and when the state uses terror, it hands the moral victory to terrorists. There's only one way to deal with torture, eradicate it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan, thank you very much. Why is it a myth that torture doesn't work when a chemical weapons factory in North London was raided successfully by police two years ago after the Algerians had tortured a suspect?
IRENE KHAN
Torture doesn't work because it is not a sustainable strategy. You may get the odd success here and there.
TIM SEBASTIAN
They found the factory. It had worked, many lives were saved.
IRENE KHAN
But there were tubes (metros) that were blown up. There have been bombs in Madrid, there have been bombs in other places.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But I didn't say it helps in every instance, but here can you deny that lives were saved?
IRENE KHAN
Yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You can deny that lives were saved?
IRENE KHAN
No, I'm not denying the fact.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So it was a useful act? It was better than having that chemical weapons factory produce material that would blow people sky high in London?
IRENE KHAN
What I'm saying is that ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Can you just address this narrow point because this is important?
IRENE KHAN
Yes, and that is why it's important not to narrow it down.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it is important to look at specific instances rather than sloganise, isn't it?
IRENE KHAN
Yes, of course, but no, it is not a question of sloganising. What I am saying is, how often does that actually happen?
TIM SEBASTIAN
But if it happens at all, isn't it worth it?
IRENE KHAN
But wasn't that a failure of intelligence rather than ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
You can't say just because they didn't know it was a failure of intelligence. Here they got some information and they acted on it.
IRENE KHAN
They failed to gain intelligence through other means and why did they fail to do so?
TIM SEBASTIAN
So? So?
IRENE KHAN
Why did they fail to do so?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Because intelligence is never 100% successful. You know that. That's not a substitute for having the person who was responsible tell you exactly where the weapons factory is.
IRENE KHAN
No, but how many people are tortured around the world with nothing coming out of it, and how safe is our world today, given that thousands, hundreds and thousands of people are being tortured perhaps at this very moment.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Just answer, isn't saving lives more important than inflicting pain?
IRENE KHAN
Saving lives is important but there is no guarantee, there is no guarantee, there is absolutely no guarantee ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
I mean, isn't it more important to save lives than inflict pain? A very simple question.
IRENE KHAN
No, I don't think it is always so, because ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Is it sometimes so?
IRENE KHAN
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
It's never more important to save lives than inflict pain?
IRENE KHAN
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
No? Life is full of pain, you know that.
IRENE KHAN
I know it, but inflicting pain deliberately on another human being, in order to produce a particular result ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
And you'd rather have people die than that?
IRENE KHAN
No, what I'm saying is that ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, it comes down to a dirty choice, you can't choose always the issues that you'd like to debate. It's a dirty world, difficult decisions out there.
IRENE KHAN
Yes, there are difficult decisions to make and the most difficult decision is standing for your values.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan, thank you very much indeed.

TIM SEBASTIAN
Right, we're going to throw it open to you, the audience, and can we have your questions, please. Saad Eddin Ibrahim. Let me just remind you of the motion, 'This House believes that torture is only acceptable under legal supervision.' Your question please. 
AUDIENCE Q: SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM, EGYPTIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST
Thank you, Mr. Sebastian, thank you all for opening this very exciting debate. I was here on the first debate ever and I take comfort to see how it's grown and how it's become so professional and so elaborate and so colourful, so thank you for inviting me here. Mr.Stewart, Mr.Qureshi - none of you has ever been obviously tortured. Am I correct in this assumption? Because I do not think that you could have made that argument if you were subjected to torture, and I'm speaking now both as a victim of torture and a social scientist. I assure you both that it never works, and if it works in one case, it has not worked in 999 cases, and I am basing that on evidence, evidence that we have a ccumulated over the years. Has torture ever really worked, and it was very interesting that you all, both of you, 'it might', 'it may', 'it might', 'it may', you are never absolutely sure about any of your statements. You're just hoping that it may work, it may save lives, and I assure both of you, and I assure our audience that again as a victim of torture , and as a colleague of hundreds of people who were tortured, I assure you it never works.
TIM SEBAST IAN
Let me get them to react to that, may I, unless you have a particular question.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
No, that's fine.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Khawar Qureshi.
KHAWAR QURESHI
The fundamental point that I made is that torture is abhorrent, and what I urge you to look at is what is actually happening, namely that torture is taking place all over the world. As Irene pointed out, hundreds and thousands of people are being tortured but what we're focusing on is the use of coercive interrogation techniques to extract information. That is going to happen no matter what we say. We can condemn those states till we're blue in the face, Amnesty can condemn them quite rightly for engaging in this behaviour, they will continue. Our proposition is that rather than allowing them to do this in a legal black hole in Guantanamo Bay or sub-contracting to oppressive regimes, understand that this will happen, whatever we think about it, and try and provide legal protections for individuals who don't have any otherwise.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Do you want to come back on that?
SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM
Yes. If you have the evidence, because Mr. Stewart mentioned one case, or you, Mr. Sebastian, mentioned one case in which torture or coercive interrogation did work. I wish we accumulated the evidence, because we can debate that to the end of time without really reaching a conclusion. My experience as a sociologist, as a victim, as a political prisoner, is that the community that practises and exerts this kind of practice, slips into dehumanising techniques as they practise what they think is torture for a good cause, and then torture becomes pursued for its own sake, until both the torturer and the tortured are totally dehumanised. That is the damage that's done, not only to the victim of torture, but to the victimiser as well.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.
SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM
And therefore I would urge our audience to vote against the motion.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Thank you very much. Lady in the second row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
My question is to Mr. Qureshi. You are proposing regulations for torture. On what basis do you want these regulations to be established, and if they were to be established, how will you ensure that in every single case these regulations will be implemented? How can we know that it's efficient?
KHAWAR QURESHI
We can never be certain about anything. What we can be certain about though is that as an act of hypocrisy, many states are using coercive interrogation techniques in a very careful way, some may say, in a very callous way, thinking very carefully about how they can avoid legal sanction, sub-contracting to states which are oppressive, or using legal black holes such as Guantanamo Bay. Regularise the position. There are many, many examples of regulations that exist for interviewing and taking of evidence from suspects and witnesses. This process could be the subject of judicial warrant, judicial oversight, evidence and interview provided to a judge, regular visits back to the judge to update the judge, and critically medical supervision as well.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
But sir, you say you're not certain. How can you not be certain? You may be risking the lives of innocent people, and those innocent people, if they were tortured, you may be producing future terrorists.
KHAWAR QURESHI
There are going to be some states that disregard the law come what may. There are states that are engaging in torture oblivious to the fact that the Convention Against Torture makes this a fundamental norm -the prohibition against torture. We're not going to have any effect on them, but we know that there are other states that are supposed to be promoting democracy throughout the world that are using devices like sub-contracting, like Guantanamo Bay, because they can't do this on their own soil. They'll incur the sanction of their courts.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan, you want to come in here.
IRENE KHAN
You like saying that you wanted to bridge idealism and reality. Don't you think it's very idealistic position to believe that torture can actually be regulated? We know it's not just that the CIA are sub-contracting, the CIA are actually carrying out methods that international law would say are torture. 98 people have died and the CIA claim that this is a system by which they are having this torture regulated at every stage by their superior checks and so on, so things are not working.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Bob Stewart, do you want to take that point?
BOB STEWART
Well, look, I have not been subjected to torture. I have interrogated. In 1978 I was an Intelligence Officer, and I used to be driven distracted by the fact that my hands were tied behind my back in all sense. For example, I could only interview someone for four hours. I couldn't use any coercive techniques on them, and they laughed at me, and these were killers, and they went out and killed again. It drove me to distraction. I don't want to torture someone, pull their nails out, I don't want that. I don't like the idea of torture. I mean, I hate it, but I would like to have some power available to those people who are trying to fight terrorism, to try and get information out of people who are laughing at us, laughing at us and saying nothing.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan.
IRENE KHAN
Did you ever wonder what torture would do to you, not to the victim, not to the person from whom you would get information, but what it would do to you as a human being?
BOB STEWART
Well, I haven't been tortured but I've been on many exercises where it seemed to be like torture. I have, yes.
IRENE KHAN
As a torturer?
BOB STEWART
And I don't like it. My point is this: is it better to hurt someone but not kill them and save a lot of people's lives, and that's the basic debate.
IRENE KHAN
Is it better to live as no matter what, with no values, as an animal?
BOB STEWART
No, no, we don't live with no values. Khawar Qureshi and myself have got total values. We just think we're being, we've got to be realistic in the current world where we are so threatened by so many people ...
IRENE KHAN
But what, intelligence, I mean, after the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ...
BOB STEWART
Yes, we agree.
IRENE KHAN
Why would a judge trust your intelligence to say, 'Mr. X has a certain piece of information, the only way I can get it out of him is by torturing him,' why would the judge believe you in that situation, because so often intelligence has been proven to be wrong.
BOB STEWART
Well, yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, the judge would presumably examine it on a case-by-case basis.
IRENE KHAN
No, what the judge would do, he would say yes.
BOB STEWART
Judges aren't like that. Which judges are these?
IRENE KHAN
When you tell the judge, 'The only way I can save lives is by torturing Mr. X' ...
KHAWAR QURESHI
How many times have you been before a court asking for a warrant? How many times have you asked a court for that kind of relief? How many times have you done it? You haven't, have you?
IRENE KHAN
Well, we know what happens, we also know security cases and how innocent people have been locked up. So many innocent people have been locked up.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Can you let him answer the point please?
KHAWAR QURESHI
I'm sorry. Remember that there are some oppressive totalitarian jurisdictions that don't give a damn about legal principles. The jurisdictions that I'm talking about are the jurisdictions that are using devices like Guantanamo Bay, like sub-contracting, because they know that if these issues were placed before their own judiciary, they would be condemned, because they have an independent judiciary whose integrity is unimpeachable, so the notion that somebody could come before a judge in the US courts, even at the lowest level, or the English courts at the lower level, and hoodwink the judge, well, I'm sorry, it's fanciful
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, we're going to move on. Gentleman in the third row, please.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Time and time again we've seen people who have been indicted in murder under torture and then we see them released. We've seen this in many cases, that people have been detained and actually tried and indicted but the after that found innocent when by chance the real criminals are found. This is number one. Number two, you being so realistic now, now what about the countries or states which torture opposition? Now, you want to say, 'Oh, they do it anyway so we have to devise laws to regulate it. Number three ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's the last point.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
That's the last point. Saving lives, wouldn't it have been saving lives to stop, not to fight the Second World War and say, 'OK, we just let Hitler get away because we'll be saving 40 million lives? Sometimes you have to pay lives to establish lives in the future. Thank you.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Bob Stewart.
BOB STEWART
I accept the points up to one point, we should have actually faced up to Hitler in 1936 with the re-occupation of the Rhineland, and I don't think it's quite the same. All I'm arguing for is not to take away the option, that option to actually try and save a lot of lives where it's necessary but under, try, I know it's difficult, it's a very difficult subject, that's why we're debating it, but try and do it under some kind of judicial system, and we're not talking about rogue states that don't pay any attention to Amnesty International or international law. We're talking about in a way grown-up states that do obey law, and we want, we don't like the idea of Guantanamo Bay, we detest it, both of us, we want it stopped.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Right, okay. I want to take some questions please for this side, for Irene Khan and Freshta Raper. Who has questions for this side? Lady in the front row, your question is to them?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
My question is to Miss Irene. My question is, as a human rights institution, do you have sufficient procedures in your work, is it going sufficiently?
IRENE KHAN
Well, I think our work has suffered a human rights backlash. I think the notion that values and human rights are a luxury for good times is obviously a great obstacle in the kind of work that we do and it's precisely why we want to resist this type of approach, and also this approach that nice developed countries have one set of rules, and the rest of the world have another set of rules on torture, it's also another way in which you undermine human rights to double standards.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. We'll move on to a gentleman in the front row.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
My question is for the gentlemen. I'm sure you know of many cases in which people have been incarcerated or even given the death penalty, only to be cleared so many years later, and for those of you who don't know of the condition for a death penalty conviction is beyond a shadow of any doubt. They have to be 100% sure that there is no doubt that they are innocent, and there are still innocent people slipping through the holes. So what procedure are you willing to give, to guarantee, so that no innocent people will fall through the holes?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Khawar Qureshi.
KHAWAR QURESHI
To answer the question, within the context of experience, I've seen first-hand victims of torture from Bosnia. I was involved in the prosecution and conviction of an Afghan warlord who is spending 20 years in prison in the UK. I know perfectly what damage it causes to individuals. I know that there are individuals who will go through the legal system and they will emerge damaged but innocent because they've been wrongly convicted. We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where there are at the moment double standards, and it's to avoid those double standards that we must provide legal safeguards that states which would otherwise sub-contract coercion or otherwise create legal black holes such as Guantanamo Bay, have no excuse for doing so. They will carry on doing this until we confront them with the issue and provide them with no escape route.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Freshta Raper, you want to come in on this.
FRESHTA RAPER
I assure you over and over again, you know deep down very, very well there will be, a 100% certainty, that everything's going to go wrong no matter how safe you say it will be; it's going to be abused in the world. There is no legal guard that will exist and everyone knows and you know, you had experience in many, many cases, and you know how easily it can be abused, and I don't think for one moment, for one moment, no matter how safe and how many people, how much money, it still can be abused.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Khawar Qureshi, do you want to come back on that?
KHAWAR QURESHI
I'd rather have some protection for an individual, though not in England, for example, in the criminal law, there were no protections, there was no right to access to a lawyer, there was no right to a break in between doing the course of interrogation interview, and in 1984 we created a system that hadn't existed, for tape recording, video recording of interviews, for breaks, for meal breaks, for access to a lawyer, and there were people then who said, 'All of this is just paper, it's not going to make any difference.' The number of wrongful convictions, the number of cases where the police had forced a confession, have gone to the point of being virtually eliminated, and so it's all well and good for us to say it's going to happen anyway, but why don't we at least try to do something about it as opposed to being unrealistic.
FRESHTA RAPER
Trying to destroy more life, I'm sorry.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Not at all.
FRESHTA RAPER
This is exactly what is going to happen.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, we're going to take some more questions for this side of the house please, for Freshta Raper and Irene Khan. Gentleman in the fourth row.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Won't it be that sometimes torture can, even though it's a form of oppression, but it sometimes can achieve security in a region rather than turning it into a mess?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Freshta Raper.
FRESHTA RAPER
Shall I answer this? In my case, in the case of thousands of people which I know, I've spoken to, they are very fortunate people who survived being tortured, 99.9% of the time every one of them was innocent, 99% of the time they will confess to something they have never done, they have no idea about it, but because of the amount of the pain they are in, and most of them, they will make a false confession to do whatever is necessary to get out of that pain and that degrading position.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to the questioner)
Can I just ask why do you think torture might bring some stability to the region?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Look at Iraq. Perhaps if we implement some form of torture, perhaps a constructive form of torture, that can help save lives, we can help end this mess that is ongoing now.
FRESHTA RAPER
Look at the situation in Iraq, why is the violence day after day getting worse? What happened after Abu Ghraib when they tortured and they humiliated the prisoners? What happened? Every individual has had a very, very negative impact on the family, the family in the society, and the tribe, and increased anger, made resentment, everyone wants revenge. Torture has never, ever been a solution and it never will be a solution. In fact you've had more terrorism instead of safety and stability.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, lady in the third row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Basically it's a matter of fact that torture happens in places like Egypt and Iraq and Syria. Torture does happen, so isn't it actually better for us to regulate it?
FRESHTA RAPER
It can't be regulated in a non-democratic country. It will never be regulated in a non-democratic country.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What about in the democratic country?
FRESHTA RAPER
Even though they will abuse it. The United States abuses it, in the United Kingdom they abuse it, in all the places, if you look up the history of Amnesty International, you can see the cases in every country.
TIM SEBASTIAN
They abuse it in the UK? Khawar Qureshi.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Can you give me an example of a recent case where somebody has found that there's been torture, or there is systematic torture in the English legal system? I'm not aware of it, I'm afraid.
IRENE KHAN
But what you will have is a problem of how the judges will decide. I mean, should there be a 30% chance that this person has information, 50%, 70%, before you torture the person? Should you use needles under their fingers, in the fingers, or should you beat them up? Should you dunk them in water until they feel they're drowning? Imagine judges having to make those kind of, how do you regulate it?
KHAWAR QURESHI
No, no, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We receive thousands of claims for asylum every single year in the UK, and our courts have to decide whether it's right to send somebody back to where they came from because if they do, will they expose them to a real risk of persecution, and I can tell you, the test, the legal test that the court adopts is one of anxious scrutiny, and I've seen the judges and I've seen how careful they are, and they would be equally careful in such a situation. I'd rather have them looking at this than some men deciding the question behind closed doors.
IRENE KHAN
Can I ask a follow-up question?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Of course.
IRENE KHAN
Would the person who is going to be tortured have the right to defend himself there? An asylum seeker usually has an opportunity to defend his case.
KHAWAR QURESHI
You're asking me? Your question was about the approach of the judges, I've answered it.
IRENE KHAN
Yes, this is what I'm saying. The judges, because they will only hear one side of the case, how will the judge be able to decide? The other person, the person who is at most risk will have no voice in it.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Because the judge will have to be satisfied on the basis of clear cogent and compelling evidence that a case exists to justify the issuing of the warrant.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Freshta Raper, a quick point, then we're going to move on.
FRESHTA RAPER
A quick point for one example. I was teaching one Asian student and one of their brothers was arrested as a terror suspect. The entire family and the two brothers in that school were subjected to discrimination, abuse, mental and torture abuse, every single student calling them name, and it caused them, these people, had to change name and change the school and change the area. This is in a democratic country.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. We're going to move on. Gentleman in the front row please.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Now, we know that torture is going to happen no matter what we do, everywhere in the world, and even though there are groups that try to prevent it. We see many cases, people, some suspects, for example, a terrorist attack and people are 99% sure that they are the people involved in, but rules in that state say that they should not be touched, they should be put in a room with a comfortable bed, three meals a day, and because of what he does, hundreds of people die. Don't you agree torture should be regulated in just that one condition, that they are almost certain that they will find crucial information that will save many lives?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan.
IRENE KHAN
I don't believe that torture will happen no matter what. I mean, Khawar himself has said how in the UK ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, no, it always has.
IRENE KHAN
No, because Amnesty's first report came out in 1973. Since then many countries no longer use torture. They have put in methods to control torture during interrogation because they found other ways of being able to convict people, so I don't believe that torture is the only way in which you can gather intelligence.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
But people are trained and like big terrorist groups and they're trained not to say anything, but if they are beaten up, if they are treated badly, they would be forced to say it, no matter what training. I mean, people think because they cannot touch them, hurt them, the only penalty they can face is the death penalty which would be quick and swift, if they were faced with torture and they know that they're going to be living in pain for a long time, would they not ...
IRENE KHAN
No.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
... Surrender, would they not give that information?
IRENE KHAN
No, no, no. There are people who blow themselves up, you know, they are suicide bombers. If people are willing to sacrifice their own lives and if they want to hide information, there are people who get tortured and who don't give up information, they die. That happens everywhere, not just innocent people but also guilty people.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. We'll take the lady in the second row there please.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
My question is to the left side of the panel. Can you please explain to me your argument of how torture can save lives, because from what I think torture creates hatred and from hatred there is revenge, and from that we go in the opposite direction of having more terrorist attacks and having more attacks that could kill more lives, and I know from for example Al Qaeda, if one person's taken from them, there's more revenge, more attacks and complete opposite of saving lives safely.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Bob Stewart.
BOB STEWART
Let's take a hypothetical example because I can't talk any other way. I know that this person has information that might well save people's lives. I want to administer coercive questioning on that person. The only technique I can use is a truth serum or some injection, I don't know quite, I'm not a doctor, but that person gets injected and that's the only technique I can use for that person to tell the truth. He or she doesn't get hurt in the long run, but we get the information out. Now, I don't like it, it's torture, but it's not pulling people's fingernails out, and it's not long-term, and it's over quickly and we get information and people might not die in consequence. Under those circumstances, that's the kind of torture that we're talking about.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What do you feel about that?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
I just think that again it's going to, even if you get the information out, there's hatred, and even if that person does get out of jail or whatever, he might want revenge, and I'm sure the lady can tell us that. She has way too much hatred and if she has the opportunity to get revenge, she will, and I'm sure a lot of people are able to get revenge and they would and you're just going in the complete opposite direction.
BOB STEWART
Hatred happens regardless sometimes. People just hate. I mean, I've spent most of my life fighting terrorists one way or another, you know, and I can tell you, you don't need necessarily to bring it up by a prison sentence, it's there.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Lady in the front row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
My question is for the panel for the motion. Don't you think that people vary in terms of handling pain and torture, therefore some people may give wrong information or wrong data to get rid of the pain, so therefore torture is not working well?
BOB STEWART
I tell the truth as far as I can. I hope whatever technique, and I hope it's a very slight technique, that is used actually does produce the truth. You can't be sure, but that's hopeful. Now, if you're looking for intelligence, and I've been an intelligence officer, what you need is a clue as to what might happen, it helps, and what I'm trying to say as an intelligence officer, I want a clue as to what might happen so I can stop a lot of people dying. I have no interest whatsoever, I take no pleasure in it, I don't like it, it's a technique and it's strictly under control, and as I say, my idea of torture would stop at some example, truth serum, whatever that is. Nothing more. I don't want fingernails pulled out, I don't necessarily want sleep deprivation or stress positions or white noise, all techniques by the way ...
AUDIENCE Q (F)
What if these techniques happen, what if the authority or these people who are held in that kind of torture still going on and on and torturing people, what ...
BOB STEWART
Well, as an officer, as a British officer and hopefully as any other officer who's properly trained, I'd arrest the soldiers that applied them.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay. Freshta, you wanted to ...
FRESHTA RAPER
I have hundreds of first-hand experience with people I know. They have confessed and signed a letter and confessed on other innocent people that they have been working in the cell with them and all of them wrong, and every one of them has been arrested, most of them have been executed, every one of them wrongly.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Gentleman in the front row.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
If you do not condone the current acts of torture being used nowadays in societies, what other methods would you suggest of extracting information required to save lives?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan.
IRENE KHAN
There are all kinds of intelligence gathering measures. Bob is the expert, he gathers intelligence not through torture. He's built a career of gathering intelligence by not using torture. There are effective means, there are effective means every day in the UK, information is being gathered without torture, and what I'm saying is that those are the methods that should be promoted. If you give them an easy method, torture people, it'll go the other way and it'll undermine actually a proper sustainable intelligence strategy.
BOB STEWART
I don't agree because frankly we'll do it through Khawar's, you've got to put it before a judge and that judge is impeccable, and that's what you want.
IRENE KHAN
But if I can mention, there is a case of a gentleman called al-Libi. In his case, he was we would call it tortured by the CIA, they then handed him to another country who then tortured him there. He provided information that Al Qaeda was being trained by Saddam Hussein to use weapons of mass destruction. That information fed into the US justification for attacking Iraq later on in January 2004. The gentleman said that he recanted his confession because he had made it under torture.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Where do you stand on this issue?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
I'm honestly against torture. I find it degrading in some ways, and as many people have suggested, this leads to more hate, it just leads to people regretting the government, creating more terrorist groups that honestly the world has too many of them nowadays.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Under no circumstances?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Honestly it depends on the circumstances. If thousands of lives are in danger, like if you have to choose between hundreds of lives and one life, I would say take the one life for the hundred.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay.
BOB STEWART
Isn't that a sad world, but it's real. It's a sad world and that's the reality.
TIM SEBASTIAN
We're going to go to the gentleman up there on the top, seventh row back.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
I actually agree with having the option of torture as long as it's the last resort, but then if we're going to install some regulations for that matter, don't you believe or think that it could help us save millions of lives, if it is of course the last resort?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan, do you want to address that?
IRENE KHAN
Well, you know, the Israeli government tried it. The Israeli government introduced a system precisely of that kind of controlled regulated torture in the 1980's and they discovered that 85% of Palestinian prisoners ended up being tortured, and that's when the Israeli Supreme Court then tried to prohibit torture. So I think that there have been governments that have tried to do exactly what Khawar and Bob are saying and they have failed, and that's why from our experience, from our research, it doesn't work. Torture is a slippery slope you don't get on.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Gentleman in the front row.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
The first thing which is just a comment about the proposition speakers is that they've been talking a lot this evening about coercive interrogation techniques and this kind of magic truth syrup which you can get at the pharmacy. These are all euphemisms, you know, this side is not willing to say torture, and I think that that's something that needs to be recognised, but I'd like to ask Mr. Qureshi specifically in relation to these impeccable judges, you know as well as I do that in the United Kingdom and in the United States, the Patriot Act and the various emergency control orders, and in Northern Ireland where you served, sir, special courts convene which aren't open to the public, so how do you actually propose for there to be any transparency for the checks and balances which the other side have proposed? It seems that you'll have a regulated framework which has no way at all of being assessed.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Well, if I can answer that question. Now from your kilt I see that you're a Scot. The first thing you're referring to is a question that I've participated in as what's called a special advocate, where the court appoints an individual member of the bar, a barrister like myself, who has access to all of the intelligence information, who then cross-examines the intelligence officers so that the court can be satisfied that the evidence is sustainable, and you probably also know that cases have gone through our systems and without exception so far as controlling orders are concerned, our courts have condemned them, so far as detention without trial is concerned, our courts have condemned that. What's happening in the United States of America is a very different proposition, and the idea that we should take our human rights examples and that the tone for human rights should be set by the Israeli government, given what's happening in Israel, is an unfortunate proposition.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Lady in the fourth row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
For Mr. Qureshi and Mr. Stewart. I can't help but think sometimes that the reasons for legalising torture are very similar to the reasons for legalising prostitution. It's there; it's not going to go away, let's acknowledge it as part of a flawed system rather than addressing what's at the very basis of that system.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Bob Stewart.
BOB STEWART
I agree. We agree, yes. We are arguing about a flawed system. This is not Utopia. We are living in an imperfect world and we've got to deal with it, and it's getting more imperfect.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan, you're scribbling seriously.
IRENE KHAN
Yes, I'm scribbling seriously because I think when you are young and you think this is a sad world and that's all it's going to be, so let's just keep it sad, I think that's a terrible indictment of ... You've got to have hope, you've got to make a better world for your kids, just as others before you have improved the world, so I don't believe, my starting point is ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
You wanted to come in on this, Khawar.
KHAWAR QURESHI
It's a sad world that we live in, which is facing immense pressure. Do we give up on the rule of law, do we allow states to create devices like Guantanamo Bay or sub-contract torture or the use of coercive interrogation techniques, let's call it what it is, torture, to states such as Syria and Algeria, or do we force them to confront the issue, and if they say that this is necessary, force them to go through a legal process to justify their position. I know what the answer is, and that isn't giving in to the negative influences; that is trying to prevent a deterioration.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, gentleman in the third row.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
I came in thinking I will vote against torture, but listening to the lady from Iraq and what she faced in the last regime, I changed my mind because I said if there was a regulation anywhere regulating such a act, it will be better for her than what she went through. Looking at the legal side of it, if there's a legal supervision, why not? If the benefit is more than the problems might cause, not interrogating or getting the information out, I will vote for the gentlemen.
BOB STEWART
Can I make one point?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, I want Freshta Raper to answer that because it concerns her directly.
FRESHTA RAPER
I think you are not living in a real world, you are not living in the Middle East. In another 200 years, I will not believe the regulation will take place in Iran, in Syria, in Iraq, in Israel, in Egypt, in any Middle Eastern country. You are judging and you are supporting the motion that we legalise hundreds and hundreds, not hundreds, thousands of people like me, they destroy their lives, the lives of the children, the lives of the family. Can you imagine how much the negative impact is on people no matter how regulated, how much impact that torture has on individuals?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Can we let him just come back?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Let me just say what I think. What I meant, you would not have gone through what you went through if there was legalise coercive interrogation, what's what I mean. I didn't want it. I said I was against it, but I feel, let me finish, I felt very sorry for you and for whoever goes through torture, but listening to the gentlemen, if we can legalise it somehow, some way, we can make it less harmful. I know, I know what you're thinking, but because you went through a horrible time, I cannot think, I do feel with you, but I don't want people to go through what you went through, that's what I meant, I changed my mind. If there is a way, this could be stopped by legalising it.
FRESHTA RAPER
Never.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Let me say this, please.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Briefly please.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Yes. What I mean, I felt for her, because of her, because she went through terrible times, if we can legalise it, why not?
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, lady at the back there.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Mr. Qureshi, at the very beginning you said that lives have been saved through the use of torture. Can you please clarify what lives have been saved as a result of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Abu Ghraib is an indictment on the conduct of the occupying forces in Iraq. The torture in Abu Ghraib was gratuitous, it was an abuse of power, an abuse of authority. It's a completely different situation to the one that we're talking about, and remember our starting point which is we're not here to advocate, extol the virtues, justify torture. We're telling you it is happening. Would you rather pretend it's not happening and then allow states to do it behind closed doors, or would you rather say to states, 'We know what you're doing, we want you to regulate this'?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Irene Khan.
IRENE KHAN
It seems to me that what we're talking about on the two sides are different techniques. We're talking about torture, you're talking about truth serums, injecting truth serums which ...
BOB STEWART
Isn't that torture?
IRENE KHAN
... Does not amount to torture, no. It would not, because ...
BOB STEWART
Oh, well why are we banned from using it?
IRENE KHAN
There are issues such as ill-treatment, inhumane treatment and so on, but it's not torture, so I think we're almost talking apples and pears here, but that's what we're talking about.
KHAWAR QURESHI
No, forgive me, no.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Can he just ...
IRENE KHAN
The kinds of things that cannot be regulated are those horrible actions.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Shall we let him come back?
KHAWAR QURESHI
The gratuitous use of violence to silence political opponents, to silence the opposition for no reason at all is utterly objectionable and as I said to you at the outset the torture convention has no ifs or buts. The reality is that what we as a matter of law define as torture is taking place in places like Guantanamo Bay, we know that. It is taking place in places such as Algeria and Syria, through sub-contracts, because states that otherwise want to hypocritically be seen to be complying with their international obligations are taking very careful steps to avoid legal sanction. Now, let's make them recognise they cannot do that and that they have to regulate a process if they're going to conduct it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay. I want to hear back from the questioner.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
If the use of violence, as he said, is a form of torture, then how can you speak about legalising something like that, won't countries take advantage of that, that it's legal?
KHAWAR QURESHI
You're again missing the point, forgive me. This is not about legalising torture, it's not about unravelling 25 years of prohibition. It is about confronting reality, making sure that our naivety which insists on states adopting an absolute position which they never will, leads them to be hypocritical and create devices so that they can do what they're going to do in any event, in pursuit of what they maintain is the saving of innocent lives.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, gentleman in the fourth row please, your question.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Before I ask the question, I'd like for Colonel Stewart to define a term he used earlier in the debate ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
I'm afraid we've only got time for a question.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Okay, what did you mean by 'grown-up states', when you said, 'This legal system would be for grown-up states,' can you define that for us please?
BOB STEWART
Forgive me if I was sloppy with my use of language. I meant a state that really tried to obey international law, and I just did not mean United Kingdom, United States, Europe or various other countries of the world. I also meant countries in Africa and other places, countries that actually want the rule of law to be imposed.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Do you have a question?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Yes. So, Bush and Blair, they say they've brought democracy to Iraq. With that in mind, earlier in the debate you said that if democratic countries could use this legal system, by your definition then Iraq is a democratic country now, according to Bush and Blair, if you introduced hypotheticals into this debate, let's say Iraq captures a British soldier, would you say that these Iraqi governments now could use real torture practices legally to determine if this British soldier knows any information on an attack?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Can he answer the question please?
BOB STEWART
Well, I hope that wouldn't happen, and I hope that the British soldiers in Iraq which are there to support the Iraq government, and that the Iraq government would talk very quickly to the British about it, and if a British, be quite sure on this, I have no support for a British soldier that breaks the rule of law, and I've said that publicly many times, and frankly the British soldier who has murdered or carried out a crime, he should be brought to justice either in Iraq or the United Kingdom.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Lady in the fourth row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
How are these procedures that you plan to implement to normalise torture different from the rule of combat that the US has in place, that they teach those soldiers how they can coerce their prisoners of war, and another question ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
No, just one question, I'm sorry, there are lots of people who have questions. Khawar Qureshi, will you take that question?
KHAWAR QURESHI
Let's be clear about this, this is not about normalising torture, this is not about making it acceptable in the sense of this is all fine and dandy. This is about recognising what is happening and creating a system to control it, to regulate it, to limit it, to make it the exception. What the Americans may be or may not be doing so far as their servicemen are concerned, you're talking about soldiers operating in theatre, they're operating in circumstances where ultimately they can and should be held accountable. As Colonel Stewart has pointed out, I can tell you that in the United Kingdom, at great expense, seven soldiers were tried for alleged torture of an individual who was detained in an army prison in Basra, and they went through a 3-month trial. One of them was convicted and is serving a prison sentence, so the idea that any armed forces from any state that respects or seeks to respect the rule of law an torture with impunity is again I suggest to you fanciful.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Let's take the lady in the third row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Yes, my question is to Mr. Qureshi. How about for instance now devising new techniques to fight sub-contracting countries today? You might be able to diminish torture this way, in a better way than what you are suggesting, I think.
KHAWAR QURESHI
Well, let's be realistic about this.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
I am very realistic. You are too realistic.
KHAWAR QURESHI
No, sorry, forgive me. Isn't it better to address the source, it's better to address the source than its agent? If you can make the source change its behaviour, the work for the agent dries up. Let's look at what's happening in those states. Those states need to be brought to account and they need to respect the rule of law. That's not the matter for this debate. That's a matter for a different debate.
TIM SEBASTIAN
We're going to take some questions for this side (points to Irene Khan and Freshta Raper) of the House. You sir, yes.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Thank you. All of you talked about torture as the action, but I see it as an impact, the impact of that torture. For me as a Palestinian who was just couple of times during the late 80's and the first of 90's, I see that whole demolition, killing the dreams of the children has a negative impact, damaging the private property has also a negative impact. What about the psychological ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, do you have a question?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
My question, do we need to redefine torture in terms of the impact?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Right, Irene Khan.
IRENE KHAN
Well, I think the definition of torture is very clear. The problem is acceptance and implementation by governments. Psychological torture is included in the definition of torture.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Do you want to come back on that? You're happy with that? Okay. We'll take one more question from the lady in the fourth row.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Hi. My question is, given the chance of retaliating against your torturers, would you?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Freshta Raper.
FRESHTA RAPER
Would I retaliate the torturer?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Yes.
FRESHTA RAPER
No. What do you mean by retaliate the torturer?
TIM SEBASTIAN
What did you mean by retaliate, fight back?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Torture them.
FRESHTA RAPER
That (torture) has got a different impact on different individuals. Some people after torture, they will do anything in their power to do the torture again. Some people, they get so much anger and anxiety inside themselves, they will never rest until they get their revenge, but some people are lucky enough to get enough help and support and counselling to move on and to try to help even a torturer who tortured them. It completely depends on the different person and how they take that torture individually and inside, and how the impact is in the long term and the short term for individual.

TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've come to the point in the proceedings, we're going to vote on the motion that 'This House believes torture is only acceptable under legal supervision.' Would you please take your voting machines? If you want to vote for the motion, you press the yellow button, button one. If you want to vote against the motion it is button two, the red button, and would you please just press the particular button you want to go for just once, and by the miracles of modern science your vote will be automatically transmitted to our computers. We should have the vote up in about 45 seconds. All right, we should be getting the vote up now on the screens. There it comes, it looks very close. There's the result, 41.6% for the motion, 58.4 against. The motion has been defeated. All that remains for me to do is to thank our panellists who have come from London for the privilege. Thank you, the audience. We'll be back again in September. Until then, from all of us on the team, have a good summer. Good night