On Torture and Torture Lite · 10 December 2006, 13:36 CET by Charles Vermeulen
This week’s edition of Dutch magazine Intermediar includes an interesting report on the use of torture and ‘torture lite’. Reporter Chris Sprangers discusses what is considered acceptable and to what extent torture is effective. A tricky subject, in my opinion, for as Dahlia Lithwick stated a few months ago in ‘Photo Finish. How the Abu Ghraib photos morphed from scandal to law’, an article in Slate: "[A]ll the legalistic jive talk—the brazen congressional hairsplitting over abuse that results in ‘severe’ vs. ‘serious’ vs. ‘extreme’ pain – [is] numbing us to the reality of what remains unconscionable conduct." Nonetheless some findings from the author:
Torture lite vs torture – To start with, Sprangers distinguishes countries which apply grave mutilation to mishandle their prisoners and more ‘advanced’ countries which avoid mutilation, because these countries expect grave mutilation to cause bad publicity and / or juridical problems for the interrogator and others involved. Psychological tricks to disorient and scare a prisoner and ‘torture lite’, on the other hand, don’t leave permanent traces behind. The ‘lite’ component in ‘torture lite’ is deceptive, by the way: prolonged exposure to heat, cold, glaring light, loud music, deprivation of sleep, putting detainees in stress positions for a prolonged period of time can likewise be extremely painful. According to a CIA report (!), forcing detainees to stay for 24 hours on end in some cases caused ankles and feet to swell up to twice their original size and the forming of enormous blisters. Because of it moving became extremely painful, the heart rate increased and in some cases kidneys started to malfunction.
Does torture work? – First of all, if the intention is to intimidate people and to spread fear, it is successful. But when the aim of torture is to acquire vital information this is much less certain. According to Sprangers the Israeli’s claim they have prevented many bomb attack by breaching the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, as the CIA Training Manual (of 1983?) admits, torture involves the risk that a prisoner could make a false statement to be released from pain, causing enormous delay when attempts are made to verify the statement and when it appears to be a false statement. According to some research, Spranger continues, only three to six percent of the informtion acquired by torture is reliable. As such torture is a very inefficient way of of gaining information. What’s worse, furthermore, is that torturing corrupts the torturer, it turns him or her into a sadist, one Professor Darius Rejali, which Sprangers quotes, states. And that’s not all: sooner or later the practices of the interrogaters will find its way to civilian society, as was the case as a result of the French-Algerian War (1954 – 1962) when torture found its way to the French police in the sixties of the past century.
abu ghraib,
chris sprangers,
deprivation of sleep,
geneva conventions,
sleep deprivation,
stress positions,
torture,
torture lite
BBC Survey on the Acceptability of Torture · 20 October 2006, 12:20 CET by Charles Vermeulen
In a survey for the BBC World Service ‘27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture would be acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives’. The survey results can be found here.
To the Fullest Extent of the Law · 18 October 2006, 07:04 CET by Charles Vermeulen
President George W. Bush on the website of The White House yesterday after signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
9/11,
bush,
george bush,
george w. bush,
military commissions act,
president bush
Deafening Dutch Silence on MCA · 5 October 2006, 22:04 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Being a Dutch blogger I was curious about the debate that I expected to dominate the op-ed pages for days together after the Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed through the U.S. Senate. To my astonishment no such debate ensued: except for some reports on the passage of the act, which only briefly addressed its controversial nature, a deafening silence filled the Dutch media. Clearly, the shocking implications are totally lost on the Dutch.
In the previous posting I mentioned Michael Ratner’s article ‘Pushing Back on Detainee Act’, in which the human rights lawyer perspicuously summarizes why everyone must fear the grim consequences of this legislation. To anyone who hasn’t noticed that the world has changed lately and that the America as we knew it has ceased to exist I fully recommend reading the article.
Detainee Act, Military Commissions Act, Michael Ratner
What About Torture in the Detainee Bill? (5) · 5 October 2006, 20:05 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Michael Ratner, attorney, adjunct professor of law at Columbia University Law School, and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (lemma ‘Michael Ratner’ in Wikipedia) on the provisions on torture in the Military Commissions Act in ‘Pushing Back on Detainee Act’. (The Nation, October 4, 2006)
Torture, Military Commissions Act, Michael Ratner
What About Torture in the Detainee Bill? (4) · 4 October 2006, 07:57 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Like Ferguson and Anderson Dustin Cho considers Section 6 (‘Implementation of Treaty Obligations’) of the Military Commissions Act as a key component of the bill (‘Act betrays U.S. principles, permits torture’, Yale Daily News, 3 October, 2006). He, on the other hand, stresses the narrowness of the interpretation of "the ‘serious physical pain or suffering’ prohibitions of the Geneva Conventions" in the MCA. (I assume Cho is referring here to Article 130 of the Conventions.) To violate the anti-torture provisions in the MCA, Cho states, "torture would have to result in ‘bodily injury’ that has either substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, disfigurement of a serious nature (not including cuts, abrasions or bruises) or significant loss or impairment of bodily function". In the above mentioned ‘Act betrays U.S. principles, permits torture’ Cho lines up some of the existing, harsh interrogation techniques that, according to him, the anti-torture provisions in the MCA will still allow for.
Torture, Military Commissions Act, Geneva Conventions, Waterboarding
What About Torture in the Detainee Bill? (3) · 3 October 2006, 20:03 CET by Charles Vermeulen
In a posting on his outragedmoderates.org, entitled ‘The Military Commissions Act: an overview’, Thad Anderson says that he consideres the anti-torture measures of the MCA ‘probably the most confusing aspect of the bill’. All the same, just like Niall Ferguson Anderson holds the view that ‘without question, the worst aspect’ of the MCA is the provision in Section 6 (‘Implementation of Treaty Obligations’) which grants the president the authority ‘to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions’ through ‘Executive Order’ and that ‘any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative’, except for the ‘grave breaches’ of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Torture, Military Commissions Act, Geneva Conventions, Grave Breaches
Wrongfully Aiding the Enemy · 3 October 2006, 08:09 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Rogelsview.com on Section 950v. (25) of the Military Commissions Act, ‘Wrongfully Aiding the Enemy’, and the MCA as a whole in ‘Too vague’.
What About Torture in the Detainee Bill? (2) · 2 October 2006, 17:23 CET by Charles Vermeulen
In the previous posting I wondered how the Military Commissions Act (MCA) granted the U.S. president the possibility to bypass the Geneva Conventions and have ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ subject to treatment that equal torture. In his column in the Los Angeles Times, this time entitled ‘Why Churchill Opposed Torture’ (October 2, 2006), Niall Ferguson gives an answer to this question. The key component of the MCA, Ferguson states, is Section 6 (‘Implementation of Treaty Obligations’). This grants the U.S. president ‘the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions’. What is important here is the meaning of ‘grave breaches’. According to the Geneva Conventions ‘grave breaches’ are ‘wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health’ (Convention III, Article 130). This implies, Ferguson states, that ‘the Military Commissions Act empowers the president to authorize all lesser forms of physical and mental intimidation of prisoners. Suffering and injury are fine, in other words, as long as they aren’t «great» or «serious».’
Torture, Geneva Conventions, Military Commissions Act, Grave Breaches
What About Torture in the Detainee Bill? · 1 October 2006, 21:49 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Does this mean that the Military Commissions Act grants the U.S. president the possibility to bypass the Geneva Conventions and have ‘enemy combatants’ subject to treatment that equal in fact torture? But how is it possible to bypass a treaty that prohibits ‘violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture’ and ‘outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment’ ‘at any time and in any place whatsoever’ (Chapter I, article 3)? No doubt it’s possible to torture people and then get away with it, but is it possible to torture without breaching the Geneva Conventions?
Torture, Geneva Conventions, Military Commissions Act, Detainee Bill