Sigh...
paulsol wrote:
Human rights watch said.
Quote:
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm
Ok. Read the part I bolded. Then read the part right after, where it claims that those things are in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture.
Ok. Let's read from
The Convention againt Torture Quote:
For the purposes of this Convention, 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.
There are two significant parts here, which are required for any treatment to be legally defined as "torture".
1. It must include "extreme pain or suffering, whether mental or physical".
Guess what? Having a hood placed over your head doesn't qualify as "extreme" by any measure. Being placed in a hot or cold environment isn't "extreme". Being deprived sleep (as long as it's not sustained to the point of actual physical or mental damage) is not "extreme". Exposing prisoners to loud noise is also not "extreme".
See the problem here? They're listing off a set of things that are in fact being used as interrogation methods, and which, in some cases *can* be considered torture (it's all about the degrees), but blanketly calling them *all* violations of the Convention against Torture. So. To the uninformed reader. He'll see the list of things. See the statement that follows implying that those things are all illegal and constitute torture, then he'll go read up on interrogation techniques being used and go "OMG! They are torturing prisoners...".
You have to show that these things are causing "extreme" pain and suffering. Not "moderate" pain and suffering". Not "just enough pain and suffering to get some information". It must be "extreme" pain and suffering in order to qualify as torture.
But wait, you say! What about those cases of prisoners being sodomized and beaten? Well, let's look at the other part:
2. It must be done under the consent or aquiesence of a someone officially in charge and specificaly for the purpose of obtaining information.
This is where the ol switcheroo is pulled. Because the cases of abuse of prisoners that have been verified (mostly Abu Ghraib cases, but a few from other locations) have *all* been shown to have been commited by people who were *not* in charge and who were acting on their own without the permission or knowledge of their commanding officers.
That's abuse, to be sure. It's illegal, to be sure. But it's *not* torture. Not by any legal definition. Those who commit such acts are subject to legal punishment for them. Note the dates on those cases of homicides you listed. The ones that were beaten? They're all from 2002 and 2003. Those are cases of individual soldiers, ill trained for guard work, getting a bit too overeager. Yeah. There were problems with that early on. But notice that the time frame after that point, you stop seeing those kinds of things? The only homicides listed are weapons related, or inflicted by other prisoners.
I only found *one* truely suspicious homicide in that list that doesn't mesh directly with a standard "abuse by guards" scenario. There's one that states "Questioning by OGA" (OGA meaning "other government agency", usually CIA). So there you go. Follow up on that one if you want, since it may be a legitimate case of torture.
But to argue that torture is rampant in these prisons? There's no evidence of that at all. In fact, even the rate of abuse and injury isn't particularly high among detainees. No higher then we see in any state penitentiary here in the states. You need to find more then that if you want to try to argue some kind of institutionalized policy coming from on high.
Quote:
Cheneys plans...The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.
Cheney's proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."
That's a bit of semantic word-playing as well though.
Let's be clear first. McCain's proposed ammendment does not simply "outlaw torture" as is commonly claimed. Let's
see what it actually says:
Relevant portions:
Quote:
(a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
and...
Quote:
(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
Here's the problem. This is not just an affirmation of the rules against "torture". It's a granting of constitutional rights that US citizens enjoy to foreign prisoners. It does not just prevent torture. It prevents *any* sort of interrogation or treatment that would not be allowed under domestic US law. That completely violates article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention which states that civilians in occupied territories who violate their status as civilians by acting in a militaristic way towards the occupying power (already quoted this, read it for yourself) loose such protections. It doesn't just ensure that no one gets tortured, it prevents the holding of prisoners without due process. It prevents the questioning of prisoners without an attorney present. It gives the prisoners rights that they don't have now, are not granted under any UN resolution, and by implication in the Geneva Convention
should not be allowed to have.
But. Everyone loves to simplify McCain's ammedment to just say that it makes it illegal to torture prisoners. That is absolutely false. It goes well beyond torture in terms of what it restricts the government from doing. So when the Bush administration opposes it, it's not because they want to torture prisoners. It's because they want to be able to hold prisoners that are believed to be actively involved in plots against the security of the region, without having anyone know they've captured this guy (becuase they might change their plans) and perhaps be able to get information from him that might prevent some serious attacks.
All of which is nullified if you apply the rules as written in McCain's ammendment.
But it's soooo much easier to just say that it's about the administration wanting to torture people, right? That's why it's called rhetoric. You're twisting the facts around, ignoring some, highlighting others, and mixing and matching conditions, in order to make it *appear* like something is something it's not.
Quote:
Bush said "We do not torture". Despite the video and photographic evidence to the contrary....
Not a single instance shown in the photograph from Abu Ghraib have been determined to actually be torture as defined in the UN convention against torture. But you'd prefer to just make up your own definition I suppose...?
Quote:
In short, by defending this you are no better than the scumbags whom you are so frightened of.
Lovely ad hominum attack there. So because I insist that we look at the actual laws, their actual meanings, the actual reasons they exist, and how they apply to the actual situations occuring around us, I'm "evil". But someone who reacts to a set of half truths and vague innuendo and assumption is "good".
Got it. Um... No I don't. I'm sorry. You're just plain wrong. Unfortunately, it's easier in this world to be ignorant and sure of yourself then just about anything else. Saying something over and over and as loudly as possible doesn't actually make it true. Believing something simply because it's been said over and over and as loudly as possible isn't a good thing either. Looking up the facts, doing the research, and then analysing it yourself tend to work much better. Again though, most people would rather just allow others to do that last bit for them, prefering to just find some source that tells them what to think. How about you actually look at the definitions of torture and then look at each confirmed case of abuse and make your own decision?
Heck. The fact that despite all of this talk about torture, there isn't a single case of legal action arising from an incident of torture should be pretty telling. Why is it that every article or website on the subject is really strong on words, but really short on details? Think about that for a minute...