Why doesn’t anyone mention the UN Convention against Torture??

[Realityhack]

We have been hearing a nonstop analysis of the Geneva conventions which is good. But it is not the only international law concerning torture.

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) was both signed and ratified by the United States.

The Convention against Torture makes a number of statements that would IMO inform the debate regarding torture.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

The US Senate made declarations and reservations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm)(some of which were objected to by several countries) when ratifying the treaty. Some of these created a further definition of torture which I believe has barring on the current debates with regard to the subject.

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(Emphasis Added)

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

(Emphasis Added)

It seems to me that this makes it quite clear that water-boarding (for example) would be a quite blatant violation of what our own senate said it understood as the definition of torture.

I believe this is powerful argument against what may pundits on the right wing have said.

Two even bigger refutations of common talking points in the torture debate are these:

Article 2

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

And this language was NOT objected to in any of the senates declarations and reservations statements. That means NO exceptions of any kind for ticking time-bomb scenarios. Period. According to international law ratified without objection (to this part) by the senate.

And finally this:

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

The senate DID clarify our ‘understood’ obligation under this section. They said this:

(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.'

Obviously rendition clearly violates this understanding as it is quite obvious that the subjects ‘rendered’ would “more likely that not” be tortured (as defined above).. Again this is our own senate making this statement.

So what I don’t understand is why nobody brings this up? Why let a pundit sit there and blab about ticking time-bomb this and exception that without bringing up the clear unarguable language approved by the senate?
:shrug::shrug:

[sweetheart]

1. torture is become normal

Have you noticed how much torture and coercion are presumed in hollywood films, how the media
set a moral precedent that gives people the idea that its ok, ever, in a world where slavery is banished.

[Kagemusha]

2. What, you mean like '24'?

It's a great drama, but damn is it deep into the torture chic thing. But it's a symptom. Not a cause.

[sweetheart]

8. In a culture where people learn from television

how to behave, when they have more time with the tube than with their mother, then
TV and its cynical view on human goodwill is an excellent cultural perversion for the masses.
Its a symtom that justifies causes, that we just did it like all the superhero cartoons
said, where super-person- flys around killing the baddies who are obviously marked out by
their accents and shifty eyes.

In old propaganda, like "dragnet", torture was not a thing, not a thing at all, if you
want to reflect on police before drugs war and before the culture of respect was
corroded to reflect what the system is today, a systemic abuse and enslavement machine..
and of course it is reflected in every media, where if you're not deployed in iraq shooting
civilians, you're deployed in east palo alto shooting yourself.

[Kagemusha]

10. The writers of the TV shows didn't get the material out of thin air either

They probably asked themselves, what would Cheney do?

And rather than simply scare themselves into babbling incoherence, they wrote up plotlines in a show instead.

[sweetheart]

22. Really, do they need more torture scripts.

Maybe i can get to work in finaldraft 7.0 or whatever the package is called, a script
of a president who tortured his people, strapped the lot of them, to speech appreciation
chairs, and ticked ruthlessly with feathers during every laughter interval.

We need more slick metavegital cable TV films of slinky MTV hipsters shaggingly doing
something metaimportant to save the world. And somewhere, the good guy must cross
the line and tickle our dark side a bit with the threat of violence.

[Realityhack]

23. The sad thing is...

That I think the Hollywood torture factor long pre-dates the current administration.

We seem to have a culture of revenge and end justifies means no matter what. It may make for some good entertainment but the way we substitute entertainment for history and legitimate cultural debate has helped make this a cultural ‘value’.

IMO it is times like this that we most need laws including international laws to protect against the rage of the moment.

It also seems to me that the same things responsible for not talking about the Convention against Torture and ignoring sound logic and human decency are what has been responsible for brining the swaggering braggart to power.

[sweetheart]

24. It depends on how you define this adminisration

This administration has its roots in the nixon impeachment. It is all the un-repentent criminality reemergent after
Thirty some years of latency, as a coordinated criminal gang, with propaganda wings and secret police, this administration
has been come to power with reagan, bush1 and now the son has risen on the idiocy at the end of it all. The torture
factor is the new swarznegger republican, no suprises his party, austrian and all, on top of it, really. Man, people like it
in your face so they don't miss anything.

[Realityhack]

21. good points.

Hollywood and possibly even more-so the TV news is a huge shaper of opinion.
I would recommend “FEAR – Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things” to everyone. It is IMO an excellent book.

[Realityhack]

13. "it's a symptom. Not a cause"

I think our twisted Hollywood impressions are to a degree responsible for our reactions to torture. Often this entertainment material is substituted for actual facts and legitimate debate. People occasionally even site such ‘scenarios’ when debating things like torture.

Our revenge loving culture is partly responsible for what Hollywood produces, but it in turn shapes the popular world view.

[Realityhack]

6. Indeed torture is popular

And to be frank I can understand why (A certain speech by V comes to mind). Fear and worse actual attack breed understandable (and to an extent justifiable) anger. People want to hurt someone. They want hurting someone to make things better.

In short they WANT torture to work because it would be so SO nice. Somebody is attacking the US… torture the fucker… and that will stop it.

And our retributional side will get its kicks.

But in the intellectual debate (and this is being ‘debated’ by pundits and politicians) I am surprised such legal ammunition is not use.

Does nobody know of the Convention against Torture :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

12. Sadly, very, very few regular people know of it, AFAIK

All of a sudden at least some people are reading article 3 of the Geneva Convention in question (it's the 3rd or 4th but I can't recall which...) and suddenly discovering it's not vague at all.

[Realityhack]

15. Ture.

I definitely like that the 3rd convention is being discussed. And as I said I think that’s great. I just wish the people on the political shows would whip this one out as well. I think it stomps things like the ticking-bomb scenario with language actually approved by the senate. Seems one step better than trying to explain the reasons behind such legislation to the extremists who promote torture like it’s the best thing ever.

[sweetheart]

14. The illusion that force coerces

Really. Has anyone read the universal declaration of human rights? Does it really
matter as china short on resumes her position she maintained for thousand years as the
world's largest economic power.

[Realityhack]

16. I have read it.

When I wore a jacket I carried a copy with me next to my copy of the US Constitution.

Not quite sure what you mean with China though.

[sweetheart]

20. I'm saying that economics have made it irrelevant

There was a time when the US has lead the world, and it is over in a short bush imperium, that never
again quite like it was, and the relative economic poverty, given growth rates and trends will put
the emerging economies in a commanding heights position to the experiment. The failure to
accomodate global economics in trade, presuming a status quo of investment for returns and stability,
(read: protection), is proving hollow, and the petrol culture is failed already, the world looks
with its enlightened eye to the enlightenment wherever it be, and the demographics in a skill based
consumer imperium when all is offshored but jack in the box and mail boxes etc. Then we can meet
in the mall cappuchino shop and poke fun at our hapless participation.

[baldguy]

3. The cons like to say that "International Law"

does not & should not over rule US Law.

Of course, they totally avoid mentioning that as a treaty that has been signed & ratified, the Geneva Conventions are a part of US Law.

[Realityhack]

7. Which is exactly why I brought up the senate statements

At the very least the US Senate is on record agreeing with these definitions.

[Zodiak]

30. And here is the US law concering torture

I posted this earier, but it dropped like a stone.

It really irritates me how easily these Republicans warp the premise of a debate before the debate even begins. Of course, the media doesn't do their homework and we, as Democrats, are stuck with having to argue based on a false premesis.

This is the Republican talking point: "The Supreme court says we need to obey Article 3, but article 3 is vague, so we need to define torture so we can go forward"

What bullshit. The definition of torture in the United States is clear:

18 U.S.C. § 2340A (2000).
10
Section 2340 provides in full:

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

The many, many people who have died at Abu Ghraib as a result of "blunt force trauma" would fall in this category for sure. So would electrical charges applied to various extremeties.

(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting
from—

(A)
the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

Anything under #1 will certainly cause #2A to occur, according to the law. All one has to do is threaten these things, which means that every prisoner shown pictures of the torture of other prisoners is in violation of this law.

(B)
the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of
mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;

Hooding people for days would fall under this category. So would sensory deprivation of any kind. Also, the "poppers" we have been hearing about (microwave weapons mounted on rooftops in Iraq that alter personality) wuld fall into this category, as well.

(C)
the threat of imminent death; or

Any time we threaten to kill someone in our custody, that is a violation of the conventions. How many examples of this can we dig up?

(D)
the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

I wonder if the family members that we have catored of insurgents were threatened in any way. The same applies to any threatening notes we leave behind to the insurgent about what is to hapen to his family.

(3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, die District of Columbia,
and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States,

Do we "possess" Gitmo? I bet we do. Also, I would argue that we "possess" our secret prisons, as well.

So any idiot can clearly see that there already is a legal definition of torture that was applicable when Bush hurt those detainees. Clearly what we have in the media and what we have representing the interest of the civil rights of the Americans in our media are less than idiots.

I am sorry if this has been posted before. Know where I got this? From Gonzales' own twisted account on why the law should be changed. The Bush administration CANNOT argue that they were unaware of this.

[Realityhack]

31. Thanks.

I hadn't realized that this was in Gonzales' crap. Definately an important peice of information.

Also thanks for the US law sitation. I noticed that one of the 'reservations' that the senate stipulated when rattifying the CAT was that it was not self excecuting so I had been looking for further law.

---

I must agree with your profound disappointment in the media today. I honestly now relate journalist with idiot. Its sad but if I am to fully admit to my own biases the first thing I think of when I hear the word journalist is an idiot who couldn't do serious research or explain a simple paper he/she is presented with to save their own lifes.

Perhapse that is harsh... so journalists... prove me wrong.

[gully]

11. Yes, but they like to use "international law" as an excuse for attacking

Iraq. Funny them thar conservatives.

[Realityhack]

17. Very good point.

It would be utter hypocrisy except for the fact that the international law actually wasn’t on their side for the invasion of Iraq which means you could just view it as consistently ignoring international (and US) law.

[gully]

25. True the UN did not support the invasion, but the RW justification is

still perpetuated.

[Realityhack]

28. Which as a rational, mediocrely informed person...

I do not understand in the least.

[cspanlovr]

4. We seem to be in violation of UN mandate: Please, someone

save us. We don't mind a little shock and awe, do we?

[mike_c]

5. K&R-- this is spot on....

Excellent post!

[Realityhack]

18. Thanks.

My first thread so I really appreciate the feedback.

Spread the word on the Convention against Torture.

[gully]

9. And doesn't this mean that other nations can attack us because we

"violated UN resolutions?"

[Realityhack]

19. Well its not a resolution... but more importantly...

In order for such a thing to ACTUALY be legal the security council would have to approve it and we have a super-vote (commonly referred to as veto power) on said council.

Also, I have not read the complete charter in a while (too long I should do it again) but IIRC an attack would not actually be warranted for that type of violation.

However, other countries COULD and even SHOULD refuse to cooperate in extraditing terror suspects to the US. It is their duty under the convention not to send terror suspects here unless/untill we shape up.

[gully]

26. I was using one of their talking points in a sarcastic manner.

Sorry for the confusion. ;)

[Realityhack]

27. Yeah...

I kindof got that. But I loath talking points so I figured I would respond anyway.

[Realityhack]

29. Another question I have...

is there anyone here on DU that disagrees with Article 2 section 2 of the convention against torture?

(No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.)

If so what is your reasoning.