Tortuous Reasoning

How unfortunate that Britain's senior ministers have had to resort to verbal, intellectual and moral contortions to explain their unfortunate lapse in submitting to accepting the confessions of violent jihadists whose confessions may have been extracted through the use of a just society's vision of unacceptable means of persuasion. This is a country and an executive body and a legislature whose duty it is to ensure that their intelligence and judicial arms exert themselves to ensure that no further atrocities befall their country and their countrymen.

Intelligence received by whatever means of extraction that might help avert another vicious attack on innocent civilians at the hands of fanatical Islamists practising their jihadist missions of sacred suicide becomes worthless when it may be suspected that warnings and identified actions to succeed in spreading terror and creating mass mayhem is received through the beneficent sharing by regimes that employ physical persuasion. A panel of 'lawmakers' has warned the government of Britain that the use of information extracted by torture could be construed as complicity.

Oh dear. Intelligence that results in the apprehension of jihadists fully prepared to wreak murder and mayhem, slaughtering as many infidels as possible, while offering themselves up to Allah as martyrs represents a legal quagmire in the making. Simply ignore it. Sacrifice the lives of hundreds of people in the process. Now that is a conundrum, isn't it? That so-called allies in the war on terror (read fundamentalist violent Islamic jihad) like Pakistan use the unsavoury, uncivil practise of torture to extract useful information is sinfully unacceptable.

Where does moral relativity fall in this equation? After all, if morally and socially enlightened societies like the United Kingdom are ready - as they have so often proven they are - to accept that cultural, religious perspectives in moral outcomes are to be seen through the respectful prism of neutral ambiguity, why not extend the notion a little further and just give torture a metaphorical shrug? It's the convention elsewhere, quite acceptable in some cultures, somewhat like the commonality of bribery, baksheesh which 'moral' nations consider corruption.

So, come to think of it, is Pakistan's penchant for subverting peace by encouraging home-grown jihadists to attack India, its people and its possessions. So too is Pakistan's active history of encouraging the advance of the Taliban to ravage Afghanistan. And there is the recognition of Pakistan's culpability in training, arming and directing malign Islamists not only against India and Afghanistan, but also troops of foreign European countries attempting to help Afghanistan fend off resurgent Taliban. Until they turn against Pakistan itself, that is.

So why, actually, the acceptance of Pakistan as a partner in the war against terror? They're the inside track, right? On the other hand, they're also an ally of sorts, one that does gain useful intelligence that directly impacts on the safety and security of other countries it allies itself with, when they feel like it. But then: "The UK firmly opposes torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of punishment. This is not just about legal obligations. It is about our values as a nation", according to Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

"But there are difficult judgements and hard choices, and they need to be better understood." In plain English, setting aside the delicate reality of the United Kingdom being home to a growing body of Muslim citizens whose sensitivities must be acknowledged given the fact that in Birmingham Muslims may become a majority in less than two decades. And last year the government of Britain quietly accepted the legality of Muslim religious courts - Sharia law - to adjudicate on Muslim civil cases such as divorce, financial disputes and domestic violence.

So the country's administration walks on social eggshells, with the full knowledge that a significant percentage of young male Muslims are in full agreement with violent jihad. And of that percentage a smaller yet percentage is prepared to indulge themselves in experiencing the interesting and exciting execution of violent jihad. Apart from which they claim the administration would never, ever, condone torture. And there is absolutely no truth in the unfortunate rumours that Britain has a policy to - covert, mind - "collude in, solicit,or directly participate in abuses of prisoners."

The country's Foreign Affairs Committee, warns that the use of intelligence supplied by countries which use torture as a handy information extraction tool - even if it had the potential to avoid a terror attack of devastating proportions - "raises profoundly difficult moral questions". On the other hand, government has a duty to use all information, regardless of sources, if the use of that data will save lives. Take your pick and run with it. Agonizing choices, but they must be made, and the choreographed dance of fidgety politicians follows.

Got that?