Over time, the definition of torture has evolved to encompass its evolving forms in methods and severity with comprehensive precision. The practise of torture dates back to the primitive human desire of the self-righteous to punish offences of others. During these contemporary times, specifically post-9/11, torture has once again reared its ugly head with a new face. The most recently revived form of torture is faith-based torture. The thrust in the revival of faith-based torture was propelled by the Bush administration in order to maintain national security, including investigations of “ticking-bomb” scenarios, at the sacrifice of upholding morality to fight the “war on terror.” According to reports by Stephen Budiansky, “U.S. military intelligence agencies have long known that torture and humiliation are unreliable and counterproductive means of securing intelligence” (qtd. in McCormick 156). Faith-based torture has its roots in religious persecution that dates back to antiquity and it continues to be practised globally. Recently, faith-based torture has expanded into aspects of psychological torture in order to escape legal scrutiny. “Faith-based torture” is a problematic expression that can lead to misunderstanding, both in its terminology and definition. Renaming and redefining the concept of “faith-based torture” from an objective stance is the first step in eradicating the legal exploitation of human dignity and promoting self-enforcement of the prohibition of torture.
The term “faith-based torture” is an oxymoron that does not accurately depict the subject: torture of the faithful. The use of the word “based” in “faith-based torture” refers to origin; hence by definition, the expression implies that faith is the origin of torture. No religion promotes the violation of basic human dignity, especially not for the sake of achieving nationalistic goals like interrogating “enemy combatants” to save a nation from an alleged threat. However, religion is vulnerable to misinterpretation as the word of God is interpreted through scriptures. It is the human error in interpretation of religion that results in its misunderstanding such as religion promotes torture. Human error in interpretation can be minimized by clearly defining the boundaries of a subject in question.
Current literature does not provide an objective definition of the term “faith-based torture” despite the available information on torture and faith. I propose the term “faith-based torture” be renamed as “torture of the faithful (TotF).” TotF will be defined as: the intentional act of assaulting individuals’ faith sensitivities to inflict either physical, mental, and/or emotional harm on the individual, or to inflict vicarious mental and/or emotional harm on the associated population of the individual. According to Liaquat Ali Khan, two conditions must be satisfied in order to classify the perpetration of torture as faith-based torture: “(a) the subject of torture belongs to an identifiable religious population, and (b) the chosen form of torture assaults deeply held religious values of that population.” These conditions will continue to be applied alongside the term TotF.
Let’s get one thing straight: torture is prohibited under international law. With such prohibitions in place, how does the practise of torture continue to penetrate our society? I believe there are two main reasons as to why torture continues to be legally practised: “the lack of political will to implement the obligations of States under international humanitarian and human rights law” (Kälin) and the lack of objective definition of torture leading to its legal exploitation to override basic human rights. Firstly, the concept of national sovereignty has always been a delicate matter; international law cannot be imposed on a State if the authorities refuse to apply international law due to a perceived threat to sovereignty and the desire to maintain independence. Secondly, the lack of objective definition of TotF enables the exploitation of loopholes through legal interpretation by governing bodies to conduct TotF. With an objective definition in place, clearer standards prohibiting TotF can be established and put into practise, thus defending the physical and spiritual integrity of potential victims.
There are various instances of TotF that have been identified globally; no political or religious grouping is exempt from culpability in this regard. The most prominent examples can be found in U.S.-run detention camps in the “war on terror;” such examples involve the practise of anti-Islamic torture. These can range from ineffective anti-Islamic tactics to more serious violations of Islamic modesty such as forced nudity and pornographic abuse. Anti-Islamic torture was committed to presumably cause the detainees to lose their Islamic identity and thus submit to interrogational duress. Among some of the ineffective anti-Islamic tactics involve incidents where detainees were prohibited from performing prayers or interrupted mid-prayer, relevant information such as the direction and time of prayer were withheld from them, prevented from reading the Qur’an and others. However, the religious identity and commitment of these detainees were not perceptibly affected by such anti-Islamic torture. This is because Islam provides a sufficient degree of flexibility to accommodate even cases of necessity.
Another form of TotF that causes much uproar in the Muslim community is the desecration of the Qur’an. A recent example is from late February where multiple copies of the Qur’an confiscated from prisoners were burned at NATO’s Bagram military airbase; the incident resulted in protests and civilian deaths. The incineration of the Qur’an by the military personnel can be interpreted as a vicarious form of TotF. Vicarious TotF involves an additional step beyond its physical perpetration, which is in this case, the act of burning multiple volumes of the Qur’an. Knowledge of the perpetration of TotF must be disseminated to the vicarious victims of the associated population; this is to generate vicarious degradation amongst the victimized population and invoke fear of the perpetrators. Essentially, TotF communicates to the victimized population what is not acceptable conduct in the eyes of the perpetrator.
The recent justifications in committing TotF post-9/11 tend to arise from self-serving political agendas. Our failure to uphold collective human rights through legal means results in our failure to protect innocent victims. TotF is a serious problem that needs immediate and sustained attention to defend basic human dignity. Awareness needs to be raised among the relevant authorities and the general public as well. We need to create a sense of outrage in order to provide impetuous for effective collective action.
By Emilie Terebessy
16 August 2012
Emilir Terebessy is an intern in JUST.