Poll4Palestine Mars 8 2007 - 10.23 am
Torture Of Prisoners
Muslims in Israel, who represent 16% of the total number polled, are overwhelmingly against any use of torture.
All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.
"We are judged by how we treat our enemies rather than how we treat our friends"Jay Kandy, London
Countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the here>extreme threat posed by terrorists.
The Israelis has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that torture should be allowed.
The question
Most countries have agreed to rules prohibiting torturing prisoners. Which position is closer to yours?
**Here>Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives
Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights
World split on torture ethics
Other countries that polled higher levels of acceptance of the use of torture include Iraq (42%), the Philippines (40%), Indonesia (40%), Russia (37%) and China (37%).
The Israeli figure conceals a stark difference in attitude within the country, split along religious lines.
A majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53%, favour allowing governments to use some degree of torture to obtain information from those in custody, while 39% want clear rules against it.
Meanwhile opposition to the practise is highest in Italy, where 81% of those questioned think torture is never justified.
Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany also registered high levels of opposition to any use of torture.
Views on torturing prisoners
Country Against all torture * Some degree permissible * Neither/Don't Know
Australia 75% 22% 3%
Brazil 61% 32% 8%
Canada 74% 22% 4%
Chile 62% 22% 16%
China 49% 37% 13%
Egypt 65% 25% 9%
France 75% 19% 6%
Germany 71% 21% 7%
Gt Britain 72% 24% 4%
India 23% 32% 45%
Indonesia 51% 40% 8%
Iraq 55% 42% 1%
Israel 48% 43% 9%
Italy 81% 14% 6%
Kenya 53% 38% 9%
Mexico 50% 24% 27%
Nigeria 49% 39% 12%
Philippines 56% 40% 5%
Poland 62% 27% 12%
Russia 43% 37% 19%
S Korea 66% 31% 3%
Spain 65% 16% 19%
Turkey 62% 24% 14%
Ukraine 54% 29% 18%
US 58% 36% 7%
Average 59% 29% 12%
*27,000 respondents in 25 countries were asked which position was closer to their own views:
* Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.
* Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.
The survey was carried out for the BBC World Service by polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.
Source: BBC/Globescan/PIPA
Twenty-four hours before the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit, Israel Defense Forces soldiers broke into the home of Mustafa Abu Ma'amar in Rafah. Special Israeli terror unites arrested Mustafa and his brother in their respective homes.Abu Ma'amar two weeks later told an attorney for the Public Committee Against Torture: "One or two days later (I discovered afterward that it was the same morning that the Israeli colonel Shalit had been kidnapped), three interrogators came to where I was held at 6 A.M. [approx. one hour after the abduction - N.H.].( Hitting and kicking and trottle the victim) They didn't ask me anything, just started kicking and hitting me while an interrogator named Moti grabbed me by the neck and throttled me until I thought I was going to die. The other two grabbed me and forcibly removed me."
The interrogators later used the "exercise technique," as Abu Ma'amar calls it. "They forced me to hold my legs to the chair legs, with the back of the chair to my right and nothing supporting my back. They pushed my back backwards and told me to 'exercise.' It made my stomach muscles cramp up and caused unbearable pain," Abu Ma'amar explained.
The interrogators asked about the tunnels that he had helped dig:"while cursing me and my mother and father an threatening to demolish my house if I didn't cooperate. They also told me they had arrested my brother and were torturing him."
The Shin Bet who interrogated them told him to stand on his toes and then "bend my legs and bring the lower part of my body downward .... It's very difficult and painful. They forced me to stand like that for hours on end, and each time I brought my foot to the floor or moved up or down I got hit," Abu Ma'amar wrote in his statement.
Abu Ma'amar's statement is one of many complaints of torture made by Palestinian detainees against Shin Bet agents. The PCAT claims the security agency's techniques are creeping back toward those used before 1999, when the High Court of Justice banned torture.
In Abu Ma'amar's case, the Shin Bet might be able to claim that he was a clear case of a "ticking bomb," since according to his indictment he had a (very small) part in planning the abduction, and his interrogation might have helpful for locating Shalit. Abu Ma'amar claims his torture began before the abduction and continued after it was obvious he had no information about Shalit's location.
According to attorney Leah Tsemel, whose clients include Abu Ma'amar, Shin Bet agents use torture in about 20 percent of their cases. In the remainder, more sophisticated interrogation techniques are employed, involving use of stool pigeons, rewards and threats.
In the past year alone, about 40 allegations of serious torture of Palestinians have been submitted to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz. The Executive Director of PCAT, Hannah Friedman, stresses that the organization thoroughly examines the credibility of each complaint, often interviewing the detainees three times. However Mazuz has not deemed any of the complaints as warranting a criminal investigation against the interrogators.
Each complaint is handled the same way. It is passed on to a Shin Bet employee who works in concert with the State Prosecutor's Office, and who eventually issues a letter stating that he met with both the detainee and the interrogators. After that, one of two possible responses to the complaint are issued.
The first is that the complaint was shown to be unsubstantiated. The second does not deny the facts of the case but justifies the actions with a standard formula: "An examination showed that Mr. ... was detained for questioning due to a serious suspicion, based on credible information, that he was ostensibly involved in or was an accessory to carrying out major terror activities that were liable to have been carried out in a very short time frame and which could have hurt or threatened human life." In plain English, a "ticking bomb."
PCAT officials say the Shin Bet should emulate the police and make the Justice Ministry's Police Investigations Department (PID) responsible for investigating its conduct, and are considering a High Court petition on the matter.
The Shin Bet confirmed that no criminal investigation has been launched against one of its agents for 18 months, but officials say that the complaints have resulted in disciplinary action against a number of agents.
Among the interrogation techniques described by recent detainees are being forced to maintain painful, cramped positions for long periods of time, positions whose regular use prior to 1999 earned them nicknames such as the "banana," "half-banana" and "frog." Detainees also complained about the use of painful wrist restraints, sleep deprivation and severe shaking as well as of being slapped and punched.
In one extreme case, a detainee claimed that an interrogator known to him as Captain Daniel Ba- ron used various objects to rape him anally while the detainee was in restraints.
The Shin Bet issued the following response, in part: "It is regrettable that the Public Committee Against Torture misses no opportunity to attack the Shin Bet's investigators, who work day and night to prevent terror and save lives, using claims that in most cases are baseless. Every complaint related to terror investigations is examined and checked thoroughly under the supervision of the State Prosecutor. In more than a few cases, the complaints submitted via the committee were not confirmed by those in whose names they were ostensibly submitted."
The attorney general's office responded as follows: "All complaints are examined very thoroughly by the [Shin Bet complaint handler] before being submitted, with no exceptions, to a thorough examination on the part of the senior prosecutor who is in charge of that handler. Some of the complaints are found to be baseless and others refer to events covered by the necessity defense. In certain cases, the examination leads to a change in procedures. In a few cases, when it is determined that a violation of procedures has taken place, a decision is taken to initiate a disciplinary or criminal procedure."
Haaretz November 8 2006
