British torture in the 'war on terror'.
British torture in the 'war on terror'.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1354066116653455
复制
发表时间：
2017-06
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Raphael S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blakeley R;Raphael S
尽管长期以来一直有人指控英国在美国领导的“反恐战争”的反恐行动中参与虐待囚犯，但英国政府官员的一贯说法是，英国既不使用、宽恕也不便利酷刑或其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇和处罚。我们认为这种否认是站不住脚的。我们已经确定，英国已经深深地卷入了9/11后的虐囚事件，我们现在可以提供迄今为止最详细的关于这种参与程度的报告。我们认为，这是可能的，以确定一个独特的英国的方法，以酷刑在“反恐战争”，这是特别适合维持否认的叙述。为了解释英国参与的性质，我们认为，它可以最好地理解的法律和主权权力的背景下，如何在“反恐战争”的运作。在这里，我们转向朱迪思·巴特勒（Judith Butler）的作品，探讨英国作为一个“小主权国家”的角色，在美国行政当局建立的例外状态下运作。英国当局本身并没有如此公开地暂停法治;事实上，他们一再坚持他们对人权的承诺，然而，他们已经能够建立一个修辞、法律的和政策的“脚手架”，使他们能够表明至少在程序上遵守人权准则，同时，允许英国官员默许对那些被剥夺了任何适当代表权或根据法治获得补救的个人任意行使主权。
Despite long-standing allegations of UK involvement in prisoner abuse during counterterrorism operations as part of the US-led ‘war on terror’, a consistent narrative emanating from British government officials is that Britain neither uses, condones nor facilitates torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. We argue that such denials are untenable. We have established beyond reasonable doubt that Britain has been deeply involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse, and we can now provide the most detailed account to date of the depth of this involvement. We argue that it is possible to identify a peculiarly British approach to torture in the ‘war on terror’, which is particularly well-suited to sustaining a narrative of denial. To explain the nature of UK involvement, we argue that it can be best understood within the context of how law and sovereign power have come to operate during the ‘war on terror’. We turn here to the work of Judith Butler, and explore the role of Britain as a ‘petty sovereign’, operating under the state of exception established by the US executive. UK authorities have not themselves suspended the rule of law so overtly; indeed, they have repeatedly insisted on their commitment to it. Nevertheless, they have been able to construct a rhetorical, legal and policy ‘scaffold’ that has enabled them to demonstrate at least procedural adherence to human rights norms while, at the same time, allowing UK officials to acquiesce in the arbitrary exercise of sovereignty over individuals who are denied any access to appropriate representation or redress in compliance with the rule of law.