Legality of torture
 

The South Park - thread led me to think about the definitions behind torture and the legality of it. Allegations have been made that torture is allowed in a war situation. There often is no governing body to oversee that no torture takes place in war situations making these torture bans pretty useless.

The Geneva Convention has been mentioned and that it allows certain torture methods while not allowing others. Individual countries may have even stricter laws prohibiting torture and I think Finland's laws are pretty strict when it comes to torture and general mistreatment of prisoners. The idea of looking for loop holes in a law that bans the use of torture makes me wonder if a country that actively does that and uses torture really would qualify as a western civilized nation.

Questions: What is torture, is prison (the taking away of freedom of movement) torture in itself? Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture? The US has allowed the use of water torture until it was banned recently, is the ban working? How does the public know if torture is being used or not? How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US and other nations?

Torture: I would define it as cruel and unusual punishment. How you define that is something else again. In Iraq I used to see the intel guys incarcerating suspects in big metal cargo containers, which get very hot with it being the desert and all. Then some poor schmuck had to walk around the thing for hours on end dragging a metal tube along the corrugated edges of the container to make noise. The idea was to deprive the prisoner of sleep. They'd haul him out at random intervals to question him or just leave him sitting on a stool until he started to fall asleep again, then bust in and put him back in the box. The Soviets employed that same technique (sleep deprivation) at the Lubyanka, albeit in a different manner and setting.

Is that torture? To some degree, yes. Sleep deprivation sucks, I'd know. I spent 3 days and nights without sleep when I went through the Crucible in boot camp, and walked about a hundred miles in full kit and did O-courses and all kinds of other assorted BS while I was at it. But they didn't call it torture, they called it training. I figure if it's good enough for US military recruits it's good enough for terror suspects who are not US citizens and who are non-uniformed combatants.

Black's Law Dictionary defines torture as " the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Now we just need to define "severe" "pain" and "suffering". Surprise surprise, there is no concrete definition for any of those terms in the legal sense. Even within the normal US legal system, the standards for each vary widely. Sometimes people get shot or stabbed and it doesn't constitute "torture". Other times people are annoyed by the sound of children playing and it does. It all depends on the case made for each term and the interpretation of the judge and/or jury.

To me, torture would be the intentional infliction of permanent, demonstrable, physical harm in a controlled environment against a defenseless party for whatever purpose. That's a pretty narrow definition, but it is a lot more functional than any definition that includes mental harm, which is extremely difficult to quantify. There are certainly forms of torture that can inflict permanent mental harm, but they are so varied and indefineable as to be rendered meaningless.

Is prison torture?
In my definition; no. Spending time in prison probably does cause mental harm, and it is certainly an infliction of harm in a controlled environment for a purpose, but considering it as torture is impractical. The Geneva convention does not ban POW camps, and every nation on the planet has some kind of prison.

Prison is supposed to serve both as a punishment and as a way to nullify any potential harm criminals can do. IMO, if you've violated another person's rights, whether it be through theft or murder or rape or what have you, you forfeit your own rights. When it comes to prison, the degree of forfeiture of rights that is appropriate is the real question, and it is just as nebulous as the definition of mental harm. Again, the power resides in the courts, and again, non-unifromed combatants have no protection under either the US justice system or the Geneva convention, though there are exceptions made for militias.

Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture?

I'd be hesitant to classify it as "torture". To be sure, waterboarding is very uncomfortable and it can be deadly if performed incorrectly or if an accident occurs, but so is swim qual. Which is more cruel, to simulate drowning without the intent to drown or to throw a recruit off a 20-ft diving board in full gear whether he knows how to swim or not, and then rely on resuce divers to save him if he sinks?

I put waterboarding in the same class as sleep-deprivation, but I would never advocate it. It seems a rather crude means of extracting information. You'd think intel would come up with something more clever than that.

Is the ban working?
I wouldn't know. The last guy I knew who was in intel left the service earlier this year, and I never really asked him much about it after OIF III.
My guess is that it is working, as brass tend to be very sensitive about these things. If Washington says no, they won't do it, no matter what the ramifications if ROE-related deaths and injuries are any indication.

How does the public know if torture is being used or not?

In my experience? The media. They're almost as thick as the flies in Al-Anbar (or at least they were when I was there) and I had to drive correspondents to the Fallujah detention center on several occasions. I don't know if they ever got in there. They didn't let me in, and I was absolutley forbidden to talk to any journalists.

The military generally tries to keep a tight rein on what info it gives the press, same as any firm. They prefer to handle journalists through officers and PR guys. Given the military's success performing even peacetime tasks, my guess is that they have been, and will continue to be, less than successful.

How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US?
I have no up-to-date information on that subject, but I'm sure that any torture used is fairly mild. The stuff they did at Guantanamo was child's play, and nobody was concerned about torture when they did that. Stacked naked in a pyramid? Please. Try being crammed into a single toilet stall with 40 other naked recruits. Believe it or not, they will fit.

I can only draw conclusions from how I have seen other PR matters handled. When the media started reporting on US troops using excessive force on Iraqi civilians way back in '05, we recieved a corresponding increase in ridiculous ROEs; i.e. "you can't shoot at anyone who isn't firing at you", "no HMGs", "no AP rounds", "no grenades, even flash-bangs", "every target must have confirmed Positive Identification".... and all that BS. Field-Grade Officers' careers depend upon good public image and shiny records. They take every pain to make sure that they do not do anything to sabatoge their careers. Well, some aren't like that, but I've never met one.


and other nations?

Hell if I know. Units from other nations are usually under a totally different command structure in a totally seperate base and we were never allowed to even communicate with their higher-ups. They may have had a different way of doing things, but I don't know what it was.


All of this is just my perspective from the ground, but I hope at least some of it can help, OTH. :salute:

Thank's for the insights UnderseaLcpl, good to hear first hand accounts.

Can't say I really enjoy hearing about sleep deprivation and keeping detainees in hot metal containers. Reminds me of the 'convoy of death' in Afghanistan which may or may not have been as bad as the legend has it.

Yes I don't know, it's difficult for one person in a military to improve things, usually a foot soldier is just a pawn and has very little influence on operating procedures. I guess a group of individual soldiers might be responsible for the mistreatment of a prisoner or two but usually the orders come from the higher ups. Meaning that the individual soldiers can be guilty like Lynndie England but that the real culprits are the higher ups.

There were mistreatment of POW's in WW2 Finland, many prisoners died of starvation and/or diseases so we don't have a high horse in this issue. Lately we've kept out of wars meaning we haven't been put into a position where we would have to either torture or not torture.

And about water torture, I'd call it torture, real torture with no reservations. It's very dangerous if we start to talk about water torture as 'torture lite'. Also the risk of death/trauma both physical and mental is very big in water torture so I see no reason to belittle it. And yes, during basic training and military service there is all kinds of stuff that would qualify as mistreatment or torture. Militaries of the world get away with a lot.

Note that under US law, any mind altering substance is under the torture laws on the books.

This is a mistake, IMO, since if there is, or might be at some point in the future a really good drug that removes trained inhibitions to answering questions, it would be a remarkable tool—also a tool that would help those detained.

Think about it, you have an excellent drug available, and you use it on a detainee, and it becomes clear that you grabbed the wrong guy. He's got nothing to tell you, and in fact it's becoming clear he's not stonewalling, just INNOCENT. You can let him go.

Note this would require a drug that is safe to administer (under medical attention), and has no lasting effects.

The Geneva Convention and Terorists
 

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

Be very careful here because, if someone in your government decides that you MAY have ties to terrorists, you qualify for torture, under your own rules. And so does every one of your fellow countrymen.

Very good point. Especialy considering the CIA's involvement with LSD experimentation on their own soldiers and civilians, in addition to foreign nationals.

There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

These "Terrorists" were lead by men with the names of Washington, Gates and Jones.

I'm very careful about who I paint with the wide brush of "Terrorist". The people we torture today maybe become the heroes of a future nation, and how will that nation look at us?

The Geneva Covention And Terorists
 

I'm just saying that the Geneva Convention should only aply to actual Soldiers not these Murderers we call Terorists.

The North Vietnamese used the same logic to torture US POWs.

There is no "truth serum," though many drugs used for anesthesia produce effects that can absolutely reduce barriers. Talk to anyone who works in an OR, and they'll tell you all kinds of funny stories about patients talking about inappropriate stuff.

This is a very good question.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions are only one, albeit, minor source for rules on torture.

Let's start with an international agreement

The United Nation's Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or degrading treatment or Punishment.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The United States signed this convention on 18 Apr 1988 and the Senate ratified it on 21 Oct 1994, thereby under the Veninna convention addressing treaty of laws, it is legally binding on the United States. It is also legally binding on the United States because of Article VI of our Constitution.

You asked what constitutes Torture. Well one definition is contained in the Convention

A moments review of this should show that there are plenty of loopholes in the interpretation of this definition (welcome to the wonderful world of treaties)

A second question asked by the original poster was whether torture could be authorized in war time. The quick answer is no, the official answer is in Article II of the convention

I will add another question and answer it. Can a State send a person to another country where they can be tortured? No

Article 3 As you can read, plenty of weasel words. Again welcome to the wonderful world of treaty analysis.

The convention requires all signatory states to enact legislation criminalizing torture.

For the United States, this is addressed under Title 18, Part I Chapter 113c sections 2340, 2340A, and 2340B

2340
2340A

2340B

I hoped this answered your first question. Your other questions about how can the public have faith at their government is following its own laws are much more difficult to answer, I am afraid.

Read the GC, the language clearly implies reciprocity among signers and their allies/client states.

Otherwise there would not be so much language to determine if the person in question falls into the category of someone protected.

That said, I'm fine with staying on the "good" side of things—but as close to the edge as is legally possible assuming it is effective. That means a gnat's hair to one side of "severe" as defined in the GC, etc. Note that even the expanded definitions posted above merely add "prolonged" to the list of mental pain. There is nothing at all definitive there.

Remember that during the Bush administration they were bashed for having THIS discussion we're having right now. Just talking about where the limits might be was reported as dangerous and wrong. Given the intentionally vague language, not having this discussion would have been irresponsible, IMHO.

It must be nice to live in a black and white world.:doh:
Life just is not that simple, by my experiences.

Thanks guys
 

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

One of the things we train a lot in the army recon is taking prisoners when ordered to.

When the capture goes right the ones that we leave alive get a sack in their head and roughed up, we are the bad guys and they should feel scared.

Usually they get moved to the analysts/ interrogators that we have in the command platoon. They will first speak to them in their native language and they are the good guys.

Im not sure how far they will go but we are shown the basics of stress positions, sleep deprivation and ways of inflicting pain if we need to interrogate the prisoner ourselfs.

None of this is something the defence forces would confirm officially so you will have to take my word for it.:salute:

That still doesn't make the world black and white. Actually that explains nothing. Soldiers have all my genuine respect for seeing the hell that is war and for being put into positions noone would normally want to be in. But that doesn't make the world black and white. Soldiers are in fact "colourblind" on the job by training, because they have to be - this doesn't make them right, even if it makes their sacrifices something to be honourably respected.
But they are not someone to learn ethics from. They're not the ones who make decisions. In a democracy, it's civil people that have to make them, and civil people need to abide by civil norms of life and ideally make decisions in light of its complexity and ambiguity, and that's the way it must be - if normal, civil people in daily walks of life see the world in the same black and white that soldiers have to, then I fear this world will never see real freedom and democracy. Instead it will always choose to side with dictatorship, which is the army's natural way of working.

How do you "diagnose" a terrorist? Most of them don't walk around with "shoot me I'm a terrorist" sign on them. They don't wear their hatreds on their sleeve. And they mostly belong to "groups" that could hardly be called organized or ideologically unified, or with obvious signs of membership. So how do you know? What use is what you learned from history or your grandfather? Did your grandfather happen to have psychic powers that he taught you? Did Patton? I don't think so. It's possible to make informed, hard, necessary decisions about these things, but only by being critical and accepting the complexity and non-black-and-whiteness of the matter. Along with responsibility for grave mistakes, some of which are necessary.

Things are complicated. Soldiers have to have jobs done. YOUR job in civil life is not to blindly adapt their voluntary state of moral stupidity (i.e. unquestioning following of orders without a military would never, ever work), but to be a critical, thinking, deliberating person who sees things clearly and guide your government to make the right decisions for your troops, to not waste their lives, to make sure they don't needlessly waste lives of other people, and respect what they do and not use them for causes that are vain. To deliberate and act like a civilian when fighting a war is criminal, and to obey and follow like a soldier in civilian life is just as criminal for someone in a democratic state. So in that sense, your "qualifications" are moot - yes, soldiers have plenty to teach us about personal qualities and morals, but only if we are able to take their experience critically, not stupidly worshipping them. Soldiers obey and kill, period. Is that what you want to do all day?

And like others have said, it's always tricky. Personally, I don't believe torture or even some of these "high pressure" methods are justified or necessary. I think most people don't realize how easy it is to break an average person with something like torture - but the problem is that once you do break them, what are you really getting? Real information or confessions of a sniveling wreck who wants the pain to stop? The truth is that it's both. And making executive decisions without knowing which is which is almost as bad as making them based on no information at all. Being a prisoner under interrogation should never be a pleasant experience, but the cruelty beyond a certain point is senseless and goes against the values on which this democracy you fight for is built on.

As for US and "enemy combatants", I think it just needs to cut the charade and treat them like POWs. They're people too, and they're not any more dangerous than the average indoctrinated enemy soldier. This whole thing is not doing anyone any good, and makes everyone look bad - so cut the crap and give them due process. Show them what actual democracy and freedom is made of - if you believe in them, of course. Reading posts like this makes me wonder about it sometimes...

"Us vs. them" thinking is not freedom vs. evil. It IS the ultimate evil. It is a necessary evil in a firefight, or any situation of urgent danger. It's a blind, stupid, senseless evil pretty well everywhere else. Learn the difference. Think critically. Stop living in siege mentality while you have a choice. And boy there are plenty of humane, rational, non-violent choices to be made here before everything goes to hell. I respect your relatives - but you are not your relatives. You're not in Cambodia and you're not fighting with Patton in Normandy. Stop trying to pretend you are, before we all live in Cambodia with Patton every minute of our daily lives.

Well
 

Those were some pretty words that were actauly just some democratic propaganda but realy the U.S. was formed as a republic somthing good were people had rights and now its called a democracy but if you look at the history of democratic governments allot of them have turned into that thing you hate so much a dictatorship. Did you know that Nazi Germany was a democracy at one point in time before Hitler came in and had people replaced in politics that thought the same way as he did and that he was able to get the constitution of his country voted out and then it became a dictatorship. A Republic is a government were everybody gets a say in things a democracy is a government were only politicians get a say in things. And through democracy The Great Republic of The Uninted States is becoming a country were it has to compare itself to weaker world players like Canada to win. But thank God that this democratic government in the U.S. is becomeing weak because the people are fighting it. Maybe I was a little harsh on the terorists in my first post but the thing I was not harsh on was democracy and if the U.S. democrats keep it up this country will be a 3rd world bankrupt dictatorship were nobody has rights in oh I'd say 10 to 30 years!!!

Thanks Platapus for that point by point - examination of the laws. And yes I suppose there are ways for countries to claim they have a right to use torture in a war or some other similar conflict.

Maybe we're in the situation we were before WW 2 when the League of nations was too weak to stop the big war. Maybe the UN and it's conventions has just become too weak to actually matter globally.