Truth takes a beating

The article ends on a bizarre note with a mathematical formula to determine the strength of the case in favour of torture. The torture of an individual would be permitted where the outcome of the equation exceeds a threshold level. The higher the figure, the more severe the forms of torture that would be permitted.

This is a real proposal to change the law to regulate and permit the use of torture in Australia, perhaps by bodies such as the police and ASIO. The idea has been further developed for other nations with the publication last week by the State University of New York Press of a full-length book by Bagaric and Clarke entitled Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible. Their arguments will no doubt again receive a great deal of media attention.

At a time when Australia has already passed many laws that were inconceivable prior to September 11, this forces us to again ask, where will we draw the line? Australia should not look to the US for answers.

The US has squandered its claim to moral leadership when it comes to torture not only due to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, but by its willingness to twist the law to allow government to use torture. In 2002 the Bush Administration gave itself flexibility to prosecute the ''war on terror'' by redefining torture to be ''severe pain equivalent to that associated with organ failure or death''.

Earlier this year President George W. Bush was dubbed the ''torture president'' after vetoing a law that would have prevented the CIA from using ''alternative procedures'' that fell just short of this definition. These include ''waterboarding'', whereby a person is held on their back, head downward with a cloth placed over their face, and water is poured into their mouth and nose. The person experiences the sensation of drowning and can be made to believe that death is imminent. The technique has been used over several centuries, including by the Spanish Inquisition, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge, in part because it does not leave marks on the body.

The CIA has admitted to using waterboarding on three al-Qaida suspects since September 11. In exercising his veto, Bush said that ''the Bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror''.

Fortunately, there are signs that Australia is heading in the opposite direction. The Rudd Government is considering new laws to make torture an offence in Australia. It has said also that it will adopt the optional protocol to the torture convention. The protocol would subject Australia and its detention facilities to more rigorous international inspection. By contrast, the Howard government refused to ratify the protocol, saying that Australia was ''already regarded as a leader in human rights standards''.

To return to the front line of the international fight against torture, Australia also needs to legislate for a clear national prohibition on all forms of torture. The law should make it an offence for Australian officials to be involved in ''extraordinary rendition'', whereby people are taken to be tortured in other, less scrupulous countries. Australian law should also stop the extradition of anyone to a nation where there is a real risk that they will be tortured.

To this point, Australia has adopted an inconsistent approach. On the one hand we have made strong statements in support of human rights in places such as Tibet, while on the other we have failed to live up to our obligation to outlaw torture at home. This must change so that our international stance is matched by a strong and unequivocal domestic commitment.

If the events after September 11 have taught us anything, it is that we were wrong to assume that the legal protection of human rights is unnecessary in Australia. Like other nations, we are vulnerable at times of fear and grief to adopting and supporting deplorable practices. Australia needs laws that prohibit practices like torture so that we do not end up compromising our principles and values.