NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, that's what Bush said last week, right? So who didn't get the memo? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051113/pl_afp/usattackstorture)
WASHINGTON (AFP) - In an important clarification of President George W. Bush's earlier statement, a top White House official refused to unequivocally rule out the use of torture, arguing the US administration was duty-bound to protect Americans from terrorist attack.

The comment, by US national security adviser Stephen Hadley, came amid heated national debate about whether the CIA and other US intelligence agencies should be authorized to use what is being referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract from terror suspects information that may help prevent future assaults....

During a trip to Panama earlier this month, Bush said that Americans "do not torture."

However, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" program, Hadley elaborated on the policy, making clear the White House could envisage circumstances, in which the broad pledge not to torture might not apply.

Now, some may say "Bush trumps Hadley, so if Bush says we don't torture, we don't torture." Problem is, if Bush's policy is that we don't torture, then why does he keep saying he'll veto any legislation that comes before him that contains McCain's anti-torture amendment?

Bush said that Americans "do not torture."
The Joy of Semantics.

At first read, the amendment seems to give Constitutional protections to POWs. That's something that the DoD has resisted since this fight began. If overtly promising the protections of the Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments doesn't give Constitutional rights to a POW, it's pretty close and some sharp and misguided lawyer is going to argue it someday. I don't know about the Army field manual references.

There is a time and place for coercion, but not torture. I can spot the extremes (Not Abu Graib), but it's harder for me to find the line that separates them. I suspect Bush doesn't want to be legislated into a corner where he can't do any more than read a suspect their rights.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/

That's the Army field manual. Read it yourself - I see Geneva in it, and I don't see people being waterboarded in it (or beaten, etc).

Judging from the deaths at Abu Gharaib, and the testimony that was aired a few weeks ago on NPR, the Army MPs weren't torturing anyone themselves (beatings, etc), but a lot of it was being done by OGAs (other government agencies = CIA).

I get the impression that aside from acts of idiocy (like the naked human pyramid photos), the torture is orchestrated by the CIA. If we're going to follow the rules, we shouldn't give the CIA any out.

We also need to get a hard definition of torture. Waving the word "torture" around can mean quite different things to different people. While we may all agree that pulling someone's fingernails out in order to elicit a response is torture, some people believe that outright deception is torture and some do not (convincing someone that you already know everything, randomly changing the lighting so you can't tell what day or time it is).

If you follow the link and look at the Appendix H, you'll see the Army methods listed. I don't see anything that I would consider torture - but opinions vary.

The Joy of Semantics.

Outsourcing 4 teh w1n!

There is a time and place for coercion, but not torture. I can spot the extremes (Not Abu Graib), but it's harder for me to find the line that separates them. I suspect Bush doesn't want to be legislated into a corner where he can't do any more than read a suspect their rights.

I have to agree here. Some people would claim that playing country music would constitute torture. If you start legislating what is and isn't you are eventually going to get it to the point where looking at the prisioner in the wrong way will constitute torture.

In addition just about every interagator I've ever talked to or heard claim that torture rarely gets you anywhere. Especially pain torture. In most case the "victim" will say whatever he thinks you want to hear. The use of the physological techniques such as playing with the prisioner's sense of time and distrupting their sleep will get them confused enough that they will let things slip and more useful information will be obtained.

The use of the physological techniques such as playing with the prisioner's sense of time and distrupting their sleep will get them confused enough that they will let things slip and more useful information will be obtained.
That is abhorrent in the 21st century.

That is abhorrent in the 21st century.
It's not considered "torture".

*brings out the thumbscrews*

It's not considered "torture".
By whose standards? Sounds like fucking torture to me.

That is abhorrent in the 21st century.
My roommate does it. He refuses to set his clock to daylight savings time (so it reads an hour ahead now) and he wakes me up at least once a night.
Maybe I could get the UN to send some peacekeepers in to stop him from playing Coldplay at 4 AM.

My roommate does it. He refuses to set his clock to daylight savings time (so it reads an hour ahead now) and he wakes me up at least once a night.
Maybe I could get the UN to send some peacekeepers in to stop him from playing Coldplay at 4 AM.
Or you could advertise for a new roomie. Whatever works better for you.

By whose standards? Sounds like fucking torture to me.
In consideration of the UN Convention Against Torture...

* Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR). See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
* Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations, then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is a public record that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that, with plausible deniability, this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to interpretation.
* Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.

By whose standards? Sounds like fucking torture to me.

Technically, it isn't. According to the Geneva convention there are certain things you can use as interrogative techniques. Flushing holy scripture is not considered torture. Telling someone their family will be crushed if the person doesn't answer questions is toture.

Exactly what does and does not mean torture is already defined. Anything physical is usually considered torture. Oddly, sleep deprivation (which is cruel and unusual) is not exactly considered torture, so long as the prisoner gets to sellp for a certain amount of time.

On a lighter note...country music is considered torture by many Americans...including me...

In consideration of the UN Convention Against Torture...

* Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR). See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
* Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations, then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is a public record that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that, with plausible deniability, this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to interpretation.
* Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.

Sheesh. Again with the UN.

In consideration of the UN Convention Against Torture...

* Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR). See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
* Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations, then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is a public record that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that, with plausible deniability, this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to interpretation.
* Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.
A side question--if US government personnel are carrying out these actions in territory not under its control, say in an Eastern European prison, for instance, are they then subject to prosecution under the laws of that sovereign nation? Could, for instance, Albania stick CIA agents in jail for violation of Albanian law on torture (assuming they exist)? And could the US legally object?

In consideration of the UN Convention Against Torture...

* Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR). See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
* Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations, then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is a public record that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that, with plausible deniability, this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to interpretation.
* Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.
Doesn't make it morally right. It's grotesque, in fact. And it doesn't elevate my opinion of torturers one damn bit.

*Edit: or those who would craft loopholes big enough to fuck people up for the rest of their natural lives.

A side question--if US government personnel are carrying out these actions in territory not under its control, say in an Eastern European prison, for instance, are they then subject to prosecution under the laws of that sovereign nation? Could, for instance, Albania stick CIA agents in jail for violation of Albanian law on torture (assuming they exist)? And could the US legally object?
The local laws might only apply to their own government. And, they might have given immunity from prosecution to the CIA men on their territory as part of the agreement.

You might not be aware of this, but a substantial number of Ukranian defectors during the 1950s were tortured to death in West Germany by CIA men who believed that every defector was a plant - a fake defector.

This sort of thing is old hat for the CIA. And if you make it illegal for the CIA to do it, they will only contract it out.

The local laws might only apply to their own government. And, they might have given immunity from prosecution to the CIA men on their territory as part of the agreement.

You might not be aware of this, but a substantial number of Ukranian defectors during the 1950s were tortured to death in West Germany by CIA men who believed that every defector was a plant - a fake defector.

This sort of thing is old hat for the CIA. And if you make it illegal for the CIA to do it, they will only contract it out.
I know it's old hat for the CIA--any discussion of their involvement in Latin America in the last 40 years deals with similar issues. It still ought to stop, and the CIA ought not to be given any protection, either by our government or others, to carry out that sort of thing.

I know it's old hat for the CIA--any discussion of their involvement in Latin America in the last 40 years deals with similar issues. It still ought to stop, and the CIA ought not to be given any protection, either by our government or others, to carry out that sort of thing.

We made it illegal for the CIA to carry out assassinations after the Church hearings - so they stopped. Dirtying their own hands, that is. They just hired it out after that.

I'm not arguing that they should be given protection - I'm just saying that they'll find a way around it.

In consideration of the UN Convention Against Torture...

* Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR). See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
* Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations, then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is a public record that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that, with plausible deniability, this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to interpretation.
* Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.

Are you referring to the treaty found here? http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

First of all, even if it doesn't break a nations obligations under the treaty, torture would still be torture. It would just be torture that this particular treaty don't regulate.

Second of all, see article 4 and 5:


Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5
1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:

(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;


I'm not certain, but does this mean the following: The State Party shall criminalize acts of torture in such a way that if any of that states citizens commits such acts outside of territory under that states jurisdiction, these citizens shall be subjected to prosecution by the State Party (their home state)? In short, it should also be illegal and punishable to commit acts of torture on other territories, and it would be a violation of the treaty if it is not made illegal?:confused:

I'm not certain, but does this mean the following: The State Party shall criminalize acts of torture in such a way that if any of that states citizens commits such acts outside of territory under that states jurisdiction, these citizens shall be subjected to prosecution by the State Party (their home state)? In short, it should also be illegal and punishable to commit acts of torture on other territories, and it would be a violation of the treaty if it is not made illegal?:confused:

You should remind yourself that all nations who participate in writing these sorts of treaties do so with an eye towards loopholes.

You should remind yourself that all nations who participate in writing these sorts of treaties do so with an eye towards loopholes.

Maybe so, but I'm still not clear on whether or not my interpretation of the treaty is in accordance with the authors intentions.

it is officialy ilegal to torture in the us (thats why they have guantanamo bay (not USA so torture allowed))

also britain and the US basicly subcontract to countries like egypt where they have a less strict law system.

Something I found on the internet. I'd rather not get into the validity of this person's statements but rather the validity of the torture he speaks about. What would be cruel and unusual to you in these statements? What would be interrogation technique?

"On the way to the camp, I asked for water and they beat me on the head with the bottle of water. I fell down when I was getting out of the car and somebody lifted me under my arms and threw me to the ground. They lined us up against a wall. Somebody kicked me, my head jerked and banged into the wall. I fell down.

They took us at 1:00pm and we reached the camp at 5:30pm. We only had water for four days -- no food. And for all this time we were outside -- not under a roof -- and we can see nothing because we are wearing a hood."

"During this 24 hours, they brought some dogs. I could hear them searching and doing things with them. They didn't bite me, but I could hear the screams of other people being bitten."

"The next day, they made us sit cross-legged with our hands handcuffed behind our backs and we are still hooded. The soldiers would come and kick us on the knee cap and you can hear them laughing.

I was so tired, but if I started to fall asleep they would kick me. When you asked the translator to go to the toilet the soldiers would shout at you and kick you. You have to ask 10 to 15 times before they let you go."

"After 4 days, they told me I will go to have lunch. They took me in front of the wall and beside me was a dog. A soldier had a biscuit to give the dog and a piece of meat to give to me but I couldn't eat the meat because of its smell. So I told him give me the biscuit and give the meat to the dog, but the soldier gave the biscuit and the meat to the dog. [In Islamic culture, dogs are considered shameful.] They put the bag back on my head and took me back to my place."

"He kept asking me about the explosions. He put his hand under my chin and lifted me up from the floor. While he was doing this to me he said if you vomit you must swallow it -- don't spit it out. Then he hit me with his hand and I fell and he kicked me with his shoes. Then he said if you refuse to answer my questions I will take pictures of your wife and your mother and your sister naked and I will put them on the satellite as a sex film. The last time he beat me I collapsed and I couldn't remember anything after that."

"When they released me, they took 400,000 dinars (about $280 US) and my ID."
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-loney200204.htm

It might be better if you looked at the site in it's entirety to get it's proper context.