|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 1597 the Jesuit priest John Gerard lay in the Tower of London on suspicion of treason. He had received suspicious letters from the Low Countries, supposedly from Spain. A royal warrant, approved by the Privy Council, was sent to the Tower for his interrogation.
It reads:
... if you shall find him obstinate, undutiful, or unwilling to declare and reveal the truth as he ought to do by his duty and allegiance, you shall by virtue hereof cause him to be put to the manacles and such other torture as is used in that place, that he may be forced to utter directly and truly his uttermost knowledge in all these things that may any way concern her Majesty and the State and are meet to be known.(From an NYRB review article, Shakespeare and the Uses of Power, by Stephen Greenblatt, citing a 1977 book by the Yale law professor John Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof.)
There were 53 documented cases of legal torture during the 45-year reign of Elizabeth I. (Greenblatt, citing John Guy, Tudor England)
There are obvious parallels here to the institutionalized torture of terrorist suspects by the Bush administration:
What I find interesting are the differences, which go beyond the general evolution of sensibility and law:
The clarity of the warrant reflects the fact that Elizabeth and her counsellors - Burghley, Walsingham, Bacon - were as ruthless as the Bush court but, unlike them, clear-sighted and calculating: compare the results of their policies. There's also I think a particular reason for the formality of the procedure. Elizabeth was childless and her counsellors had to cover themselves against reprisals by her successor - after all, Babington was tortured and executed for trying to put James' mother Mary on the throne. So they needed her thumbprint on controversial acts like torture warrants. For the same reason she had to prevent their jumping ship while she lived: so she needed their thumbprints too.
I'd like to report that Elizabeth's parliaments were more vigilant that the US Congress in reining in claims of royal privilege. They were, but not over torture: the knights of the shires couldn't care less what happened to a bunch of alien terrorists. But they did join battle over taxation; and and in alliance with common lawyers like Coke, their struggle led to the Petition of Right, the Civil War, and the whole Anglo-American tradition of constitutional government. Which the President, with little opposition from the Congress and judiciary, has been reversing, in his mad-scientist time machine, towards the Tudor Star Chamber.