All about flooble | fun stuff | Get a free chatterbox | Free JavaScript | Avatars    
perplexus dot info
Discussion Forums
Login: Password:Remember me: Sign up! | Forgot password

Forums > General Discussion
This is a forum for discussing anything and everything.
brianjn
2005-12-07 09:41:59
Amnesty International

A quip was made, and somewhat reinforced, about a no longer attending visitor/member of this site.

Umbrage was taken about "Gitmo". There is a history behind that quip of which the challenger has little knowledge, and there is little point in attempting to revisit it as it is somewhat superfluous to the challenge (I think).

It is well known that from country to country there are differing protocols, and these seem to be being made evident to us in terms of "terrorism" and "drug trafficking" situations.

The quips about tying or other stricture were very much in a contexture. And in the fray of the moment some frivolity could be accepted.

As there appears to be some difference of feeling on this matter, let it be aired outside the general ChatterBox.

Federico Kereki
2005-12-07 11:33:05
The said text

<Percy>: (a) no barbarism or torture occurs at Gitmo (b) the prisoners there are not random ppl, but are terrorists (c) barbarism is what went on at the meat grinder rooms and is what the homicide bombers do. Hope this clears up any confusion.
<Percy>: Good point lal.,
<Penny>: A lot of the Gitmo prisoners have random looking beards...
<Penny>: At Abu Gharib there definitely was torture. Not as bad as what Saddam used to do, but Saddam isn't our standard. The Founding Fathers are our standard.
<Percy>: Abu Gharib is just an example where photographic evidence slipped out.
<brianjn>: Gitmo? No torture? I'm leaving my mind open on this, but there have been two Australian inmates there. Reports supportive of them suggest treatment has not been with 'kid-gloves'!
<Hugo>: John McLaughlin said they didn't torture because it was contra productive.
<Hugo>: And we all believe him
<Hugo>: He didn't say j/k afterwards

Federico Kereki
2005-12-07 11:35:48
Awful excuse

The idea "no barbarism or torture occurs at Gitmo [because the people there] are terrorists" is on par with the Nazi justification for the Holocaust ("they aren't people, they are just jews"), the stalinist excuse for its mass murders ("they are traitors to the revolution"), and all other similar genocide measures.

Percy
2005-12-07 14:54:11
Re: The said text

<Percy>: I'm dismayed at ppl thinking it's acceptable to make jokes about the barbarism at Guantanamo Bay
|more comments|
<Nathan>: What Are you talking about?
<Nathan>: whats barbarism?????!!!
<Percy>: Gitmo or gtmo is slang for Guantanamo Bay.
<Percy>: The US has kidnapped some random ppl and tortures them there
<Percy>: along with various other bases around the world.
<Percy>: Barbarism has to do with beards.
|more comments|
<Larry>: Percy: (a) no barbarism or torture occurs at Gitmo (b) the prisoners there are not random ppl, but are terrorists (c) barbarism is what went on at the meat grinder rooms and is what the homicide bombers do. Hope this clears up any confusion.
<Percy>: Good point lal.,
<Penny>: A lot of the Gitmo prisoners have random looking beards...
<Penny>: At Abu Gharib there definitely was torture. Not as bad as what Saddam used to do, but Saddam isn't our standard. The Founding Fathers are our standard.
<Percy>: Abu Gharib is just an example where photographic evidence slipped out.
<brianjn>: Gitmo? No torture? I'm leaving my mind open on this, but there have been two Australian inmates there. Reports supportive of them suggest treatment has not been with 'kid-gloves'!

Percy
2005-12-07 15:02:19
Re: Amnesty International

I just had to put the record straight, I'm sure Federico did not mean to attribute Larry's comment to me. Added a bit to put in context. Hope my cut and paste is up to scratch.

Hugo
2005-12-07 16:21:00
Re: Amnesty International

Unless I am completely mistaken, Larry never said that no torture happens at Guantanamo Bay because the people there are terrorists.
His "random people/terrorist" comment is just an answer on Percy's comment "The US has kidnapped some random ppl".

What I am puzzled with is all the noise the European governments are now making about the"secret" CIA torture flights. I remember having read a fiction book abouth 1...2 years ago where the hero was flown by the CIA from Czechia to Egypt, because torture and interrogation was easier there. And now our governments say they didn't know? Come on, hypocrits.

Anybody who really believes no torture (Or hard interrogation or whatever you want to call it) is taking place in the war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (where ever those may be), dream further.

The real question is: are there situations where torture is/should be allowed?

Federico Kereki
2005-12-07 22:38:41
Percy, my apologies

Frankly, I have no idea how that happened -- I just did a copy and paste, and didn't (willingly, at least!) edit the text. I had no intention whatsoever of misattributing that statement; all I wanted was to show the original discussion so this forum could be understood.

Sorry, Percy, and my apologies again!

Gamer
2005-12-08 00:15:26
Re: Amnesty International

Maybe Levik could change that post? It seems like a small fix that would help a lot.

Percy
2005-12-08 12:24:49
Re: Amnesty International

FK, you don't have to apologize, I understood it was an accident.

Hugo, I guess you are suggesting that torture is acceptable if information obtained from it can save human lives. I personaly disagree for many reasons (morality, abuse of the system, errors, perpetuating hatred...) However I realise that many ppl will think torture is acceptable on grounds of national security. If this is to be the case the torture should be over seen and proven to be effective.

"Extraordinary rendition" is the practice of flying ppl to lawless countries to be tortured. This seams to me to be barbaric and cowardly. Lots of politicians are hypocrits, they can still be in the right some of the time.

Hugo
2005-12-08 14:11:11
Re: Amnesty International

Percy, I am not suggesting anything, I am just asking a question.
There are many reasons for both a no or a yes answer to the "Is torture acceptable under certain circumstances".
But the answer to that question would have decissive implications on the questions posed in this thread.

And
"Extraordinary rendition" is the practice of flying ppl to lawless countries to be tortured. This seams to me to be barbaric and cowardly. Lots of politicians are hypocrits, they can still be in the right some of the time.

English is such a beautifull language: "Extraordinary rendition" Who thinks calling it so?
"Lots of politicians are hypocrits" I guess they're all the same everywhere.
"they can still be in the right some of the time. " Probably most of the time, they are certainly willing to do the job as good as possible, but I guess it may become difficult on the way.

Percy
2005-12-08 15:08:59
Hugo, my apologies

Ok, my turn to apologise. Hugo was asking a question that many ppl who think torture is immoral would not think to ask, so I jumped to conclusions. Hey, at least I stated I was guessing.

MindRod
2005-12-08 18:50:27
Re: Amnesty International

Ken Washio (Owashi no Ken of the Kagaku Ninja-Tai Gatchaman) would say "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity, even if the enemy is a member of the Galactor forces."

Doctor Nambu would teach "Cruel practices were once commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the religious rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition."

Joe Asakura would not agree. Jun would say "

Federico Kereki
2005-12-10 10:54:40
Human Rights

I agree with the comments above, but, why "the religious rights of the human person"?

Shouldn't it just be "the rights of the human person"?

Doesn't a person have rights outside of religion?

And what happens if he's not of your religion?

Hugo
2005-12-10 12:21:06
Re: Amnesty International

"the religious rights of the human person"
I fully agree with you Federico.

Mindrod, I found it very interesting to read what Ken Washio and Doctor Nambu said abouth the thread, but what does Mindrod think about it?

MindRod
2005-12-10 13:58:43
Re: Amnesty International

I took Dr Nambu's words slightly out of context. Dr Nambu was speaking to a group of monks, whose organization had remained silent about the use of torture by government leaders in the past, considering these issues to be political versus religious. Dr Nambu was pointing out that since a person's religious rights are also violated by the practice of torture, it was their duty to speak out.

Some rights are granted by governments or other societal bodies. The more fundamental, "religious" rights are bestowed on us by our Creator and cannot be justly taken away from us by any government. What religion a person belongs to is immaterial. Religious rights are bestowed by the Creator, not the religion.

I share Dr Nambu's philosophy, for the most part, but I also share the concerns of those who want to safeguard society from terrorism. Also at issue is the question about what constitutes "torture". It may be that mild forms of torture (sleep deprivation, for example) are appropriate in some cases. Where should the line be drawn? That no person should ever be subjected to torture that causes permanent injury is clear.

brianjn
2005-12-11 07:21:26
Re: Amnesty International

One never has any idea of the destination of one's thoughts no matter how well you feel that you are in control.

[I envisaged a few 'cross chats' and then the issue being left to rest. This has not been quite as anticipated. For that reason I apologise that I did not include text (as has Federico and Percy) that initiated this theme. In hind-sight, someone reading this as an archive would have had no concept as to the foundation of the discussion - thank you FK for that, and Percy fo the clarification.]

However, I do note that one blessing from my action in creating this thread is that it did remove from the Chatterbox the potential for unnecessary 'bickering' which may have been ongoing and not good for the site as a whole.

I am also pleased to see how the different arguments are being presented.

brianjn
2005-12-11 08:17:41
Re: Amnesty International

I am drawn to Mindrod's last sentence:
"That no person should ever be subjected to torture that causes permanent injury is clear."

My question is: "How do I determine what level and form of torture WILL NOT cause permanent injury?"

None of us know what will, for instance, be the trigger that impairs us forever. Could it be disheartening information, a roadside interrogation by the authorities or would it take extremes like "the Chinese Drip" torture?

It is imperative that certain levels of questioning be allowed to our respective authorities to appropriate the information necessary for a suitable end to their cause.

"Certain levels of questioning" clearly must embody "methodology".

Cop on the Street. Suspect in interview wants a "smoke". Officers hold out the cigarette but won't give ...

Terror suspect. Agent suggests a range of procedures ....

But then, let's not forget how my Mum and Dad dealt with their naughty offsprings [4 of us - we're all survivors tho' one declares foul! Jealousy that is!]. A smack on the fingers or a 'reward given down low' might well cure many evils. [My children do not seem to be marred ... Hey! That's what happened to me!]

Ok! You have an instance for investigation.
How do you decide what are the appropriate parameters for setting up the 'interview ' and what are the guidelines for the methodologies which may be used?

Should the scene (actual or virtual), be taken into account?
a) Officer approached car, defendant ..............
b) Interview room ... prisoner may or may not have pertinent information ...

I am very wary of the Biblical adage: "Judge not lest ye also be judged" - or something closely akin that that. If I, and my community (however local) do not make some form of judgement, do we not open our 'doors' to full scale anarchy?

MindRod
2005-12-11 14:40:03
Re: Amnesty International

A relationship exists between punishment and torture, but they are not identical concepts.

One desired effect of punishment is to contribute to the correction of the offender, but the primary effect is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. It is the duty (and the right) of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors. Even the death penalty is acceptable for grave offenses. Preserving the common good requires rendering agressors unable to inflict harm.

The desired effect of torture is to force information, get a confession, get revenge, etc. Although torture is obviously inappropriate for minor offenses, it may be acceptable to use torture as part of the punishment for a serious offense.

A captured terrorist, for example, commits a grave offense against society by witholding information that might help authorities prevent an attack. The offense is serious enough to warrant severe punishment. The authorities have the right and the duty to force the information in an attempt to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Percy
2005-12-11 22:35:11
Re: Amnesty International

If a terrorist covicted by a transparent and just goverment system, was under the circumstances described above, there may be good grounds for carefully monitored torture (if the only alternative was horrific consequences for other people). I doubt that this will/has ever happen/ed? At any rate it is far from the current situation.
Hugo, was that novel you mentioned by Henry Porter? I'm guessing this article from today's paper is by the same guy, you (and others following this thread) may find it of interest.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1664599,00.html
(apologies all when this link dies, I'll try and keep a copy on my hard drive for anyone who wants it)

Hugo
2005-12-19 14:57:28
Re: Amnesty International

Mindrod, I have read your comment over and over and I understand it as if you accept torture as part of a punishment?
Why?
What would the benefit of torture be, either for the authority or (?) the offender?

MindRod
2005-12-19 23:13:56
Re: Amnesty International

The benefit expected from the application of torture by the legitimate authority is the extraction of information useful in preventing grave harm to society. Torture should never be used for purposes of revenge, for personal benefit, nor when little harm to society is anticipated. The offender doesn't benefit from torture, as torture is forced. An offender benefits from just punishment only when it is accepted willingly as partial expiation for a transgression.

Hugo
2005-12-20 12:53:46
Re: Amnesty International

Thanks for the explanation, I thought you meant it that way, but just wanted to be sure, because I guess there is a problem.
One
Torture is acceptable "by the legitimate authority is the extraction of information useful in preventing grave harm to society".
Two
"An offender benefits from just punishment only when it is accepted willingly "
How can you then also defend
Three
"Even the death penalty is acceptable .."

I have the same feelings about torture as you expressed (Which probably doesn't make me/us very popular), but am against death penalty.

Bruce Brantley
2005-12-20 13:58:26
Re: Amnesty International

I do not believe that torture should ever be used to obtain information. Consider the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. How many people admitted to false accusations or implicated other innocent people to avoid torture? People under torture are likely to agree to whatever asked of them to avoid more torture.

But what constitutes torture? Recently in Philadelphia there was an article about a new High School principal that was making remarkable progress. A couple of weeks later he was charged with having sex with one of the students based on a video of him and that student entering and leaving an unoccupied area of the school. The student was held and questioned for hours by officers who insisted that she had sex with the principal. She eventually gave in and told them what they wanted to hear just so she could go home. That isn't even considered torture, but an innocent person was accused and charged with rape. Torture it seems depends on the individual and her/his threshold of tolerance.

Related subject: The Patriot Act is the closest thing to Nazism this country has seen since McCarthyism. I hope it fails in the Senate. Given the choice between the Patriot Act and terrorists. I'll take the terrorists.

Hugo
2005-12-20 15:06:47
Re: Amnesty International

I agree on your Patriot Act remark. I also would take my chances with the terrorists.

What you say on the uneffectiveness of torture is what John McLaughlin said. But are you against torture because it is not an effective means of getting information, or are you against torture for other reasons? Which reasons then?

MindRod
2005-12-22 12:45:20
Re: Amnesty International

Hugo,
I believe the death penalty is acceptable only in the case of an extremely grave offense. Torture, however, is not acceptable merely as a punishment for an offense, not even an extremely grave offense. Torture is only acceptable when the legitimate authority has a strongly grounded belief that the subject has information that may be used to prevent serious harm to society. Sleep and light deprivation, psychological pressure, and the playing of Michael Bolton can be effective methods to weaken the subject's will to resist. Bloodshed and permanent injury should be avoided whenever possible.

ceb
2006-01-04 16:10:04
Re: Amnesty International

Bruce, I have been in Iraq; I have seen and talked to the terrorists..can you really mean you would rather have them than the protection of the Patriot act?

To all, toture and interrogation need to be explained. To my mind, toture is more than the causing of pain, toture causes damage - either physical or mental that lasts beyond the period. When we normally (prior to 9/11) discussed toture, we talked of the things the North vietnamese or Iraqis did to American POW (prisoners of war). Often, generally, the toture was NOT used to gain legitame information, but was used to corerce a "confesion" (similar to the Teacher story above). Even he Abu G thing, while gaining nothing, was not toture - it WAS abuseive behavior.

Mindrod, I think you are on track (who am I to say who is on track? this is just my opinion) - but toture is NEVER right - harsh, aggresive interrogation, by trained interrogators, with a known and valid purpose, (such as determing the location of explovisive devices set to kill 10's or 100's of people) of a person KNOWN to have this knowledge, this I accept.

As an aside, any trained interrogator (Marine, Army, civilian) employed by the US in Iraq realizes that toture (as I have defined it) is COUNTER- productive - Iraqis, like most people, will lie to make the pain stop.

Interesting discussion.

MindRod
2006-01-05 02:43:46
Re: Amnesty International

Thank you, ceb, for pointing out the distinction between torture and aggressive interrogation. It is always nice to hear from someone who has a measure of "real" experience.

Hugo
2006-01-05 14:26:46
Re: Amnesty International

I feel we are walking on a very thin line when allowing harsh, aggressive interrogation to get important information, but disallowing torture.
Does the CIA flights towards Egypt where carried out because in Egypt harsh, aggressive interrogation is allowed by law and is not allowed in Western Europe? I doubt it, I believe we are talking here about torture.
Now are these interrogations allowed? Well, not when its called torture (UNCAT article 2.2 says "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, ..., may be invoked as a justification of torture). But it is allowed if we rename it!
On the Abu G thing: it was not abusive behavior, it was torture as defined in article 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".
On the Patriot Act: If I would live in the US, I would certainly take my chances with the terrorists, there is only a small chance that they hit me, but I would certainly be hit by the Patriot Act. As Bruce said, it's saying Nazism, McCarthyism all over. I just read it again and it is frightening.

Vernon Lewis
2006-01-05 16:27:36
Re: Amnesty International

I question. You aggressively interrogate. He tortures.
The only difference between harsh aggressive interrogation and torture is which side is the perpetrator.
It is all torture. It may be necessary to get vital information. It may be justified. But it is still torture.and should be recognised as such.
Whether the end justifies the means is an individual opinion and I would never presume to tell others how to judge. My opinion is sharply coloured by my life experiences.
Torture is like war - if you haven't been there you haven't got the same perspective.

Hugo
2006-01-05 16:58:55
Re: Amnesty International

That's about what I wanted to say Vernon.
As to the Patriot act:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Benjamin Franklin

ceb
2006-01-05 21:52:02
Re: Amnesty International

Hugo, again I think part of the problem is the defination of toture, I hae explained what I, and I hope reasonalbe people, agree is toture. In a perfect world, we would not need to discuss these items. Muslims, the people that right now are at the center of every single conflict in the world, or I guess muslism terrorists, since I know and trust a few muslims..have in fact trusted them with my life...understand that once they are captured they need only to scream "toture" and certain groups of people leap to there side. I did not agree with what happened at Abu G ...it was NOT conducted by interrogators; it served no purpose. Toture - comparing what happened there to what has happened to US POWs in our last several conflicts is an insult to those Americans,..and others. The civilized, the western world is in a war of survial, throughout Eurpore the Muslims are gaining political strength - and most are in favor of voting one time...to establish Muslim Law as the law of the land. Look at Netherlands, and other parts of Eurpore..the native population is on the decline while imigrants population is increasing.

I have been "water-boarded" - it was terrifing, but casued no effects after it stopped. Like much in America, and I suppose the world, we name somthing then object to it. If I say that most crimes in my county are committed by blacks, I am not stating a fact...I am "insensitive" and a racist. You, (the generic you) define interrogation for intelligence informaton as toture since the "victim" is not given rights..or for what ever reason. I define toture, by anyone, as casuing lasting pain (physical or mental) beyond the session.

Hugo...where do you live? since you say "if i lived in the United States I would take my chances...". Eurpore is getting hit; and would it not be wonderful if everyone had the attitude...I do not care as long as it does not happen to me? What about family, freinds, co-workers? Terrorism, is allowed to go on will effect everyone, some how or the other.

No intentant to offend - if I did, PLEASE disregard; just as some one who has seen what goes on; I can not idly listen to the "perfect world" idea.



Hugo
2006-01-06 08:07:08
Re: Amnesty International

Ceb, let me start with your last paragraph. I understand that you do not want to offend somebody, I would not have believed that anybody would try to do so in a discussion. I always thought that a discussion was the way to develop thoughts, not to 'win' a discussion. If you also believe that, you should help me explain my point of vieuw, you should show me the strong and weak points of the arguments I use, and of course, I must do the same the other way around.
There is something more to this "offend" subject. As you probably know, english is far from my first language. This handicaps me in such a way that I can express a certain idea/feeling in maybe two or three ways or gradations (degrees?). Therefore, I can unintentionally be rude or impolite, please forgive me than, it is not meant to be so.
Now to our discussion. Let me start with the Patriot Act remark. No, I did not want to say "I do not care as long as it does not happen to me?" I said "I will take my chances", meaning I think the threat coming from terrorism is - in my opinion - far less then the threat that comes from the new legislation. So, here we have a difference of opinion.
While on the other part of your posting, I agree much more with what you say then you think. It is indeed a problem of definition. And that is difficult item because in your posting you are making up the definition, while I follow the definition the United Nations agreed upon. And no offense, but there's a certain difference.
Using torture as a way to get information to save other lives, I would accept. But I can't accept renaming Iraqi POW, because then they are not protected by the Geneva Convention and one can do with them what one wants. If you use torture, then just admit it.
As for the Muslims, I think you want to say: The problem is not that most Muslims are terrorists, the problem is that most terrorists are Muslims. And here I fully agree. And also to the future of the European Countries vs the establishment of Muslim law, but this and many other similar things are classified as racist remarks and punishable under our laws (Even if you have factual information).
The only way - for Europe - to survive the political evolution and to avoid Sharia Law - is to have a properly working integration politic. Which may be very difficult, but I believe must be possible, it has been done before in history.

ceb
2006-01-10 20:26:38
Re: Amnesty International

Hugo, I have not had time to provide a well thought out response, but I will. As for your english, I speak three languages, NONE of them (including my native tongue, English) as well as you xpress your self - in English. :-)

Hugo
2006-01-11 02:52:14
Re: Amnesty International

I like you a lot ceb :-)

Percy
2006-01-11 19:33:39
Re: Amnesty International

Seb, I am interested to here more about your experiences of being water boarded. If you could describe the experience it may help others understand your point of view.

As for drawing the line between legitimate interrogation and torture;
Sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, environmental manipulation, extended (24 hour or more) interrogations, denial of toilet facilities, short shackling, white noise (as examples) on a one-off, short duration basis to enable vital information to be more easily extracted, may not amount to torture. Similarly with certain other practices. However repeated use of extraordinary interrogation practice may well lead to long-term mental health problems.

Unfortunately at Guantánamo Bay no independent monitoring of the effects of these practices is allowed.

It has been well documented that people being held without charge at Belmarsh in the UK have suffered lasting mental health problems as a result.

A report by 11 psychiatrists and a psychologist on the mental health of the Belmarsh prisoners detained under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCS) was published. It concluded that there was:

"serious damage to the health of all the detainees they have examined has occurred and is inevitable under a regime which consists of indefinite detention. These conclusions are based on a series of reports originally commissioned for legal purposes from the doctors over the past two and a half years by the prisoners' solicitors. Progressive deterioration in the mental health of all these detainees and their families was observed"

Eleven men are detained indefinitely at Belmarsh high security prison under the ATCS 2001. Belmarsh is often referred to as the UK’s Guantánamo.

Surely any state that did not practice torture of some kind, should allow unrestricted access to all its detainees by independent monitors such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross.

ceb
2006-01-12 10:23:30
Re: Amnesty International

Hugo, finally I have the chance to response. I have tried to make three points, 1. The Iraqis now captured are NOT entitled to POW status under the Geneva Convention, 2. The Convention is silent on treatment concerning terrorists and the Iraqis captured now, and 3. Torture does NOT rule out pain (only severe pain).
In response to “renaming of Iraqis as Non-POWs”: Each Geneva Convention defines a certain class of protected persons.
The First Convention applies to wounded and sick, as well as religious and medical personnel.
The Second Convention extends protections to shipwrecked combatants.
The Third Convention protects prisoners of war.
The Four Convention protects civilians in occupied territories.
The First Protocol protects victims of international conflicts and the Second Protocol extends protections to victims of internal conflicts

The Third Geneva Convention, Article 4 defines POW as below (there are others, but they include military, sick, etc.)
Article 4
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
A 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of carrying arms openly;
(c) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The convention also affords protection to others, but the terrorists in Iraq do not qualify for any of those designations. The convention, Article 3 applies to persons taking NO PART in the conflict; those captured are partaking, so they do not receive the protection offered by Art 3, paragraph 1(c) outrages upon personal dignity.
Article 3
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
The people right now taken in Iraq are NOT POWs under the definition of Article 4, paragraph 2: due to violations of sub article (a), (b), (c) and (d) – in other words, all of them; nor are they “protected” under any of the conventions.
As for torture, first nothing so far prevents torture against “unprotected persons”.
Convection IV, Article 68 speaks of PROTECTED persons and defines there a protected person as one who “commit(s) an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them,”
Art. 31 states that “ No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”
Torture is expressly forbidden against PROTECTED persons, I have not found anywhere where, for lack of a better term, “unprotected” persons are protected from torture. Convention 1, Art 3, Art 12; Convention IV Art 32 and Protocol II, Art 4 all prohibit torture against PROTECTED persons.
What is torture? Of interest to me, I can also find no definition of torture or “outrages against personnel dignity” in any of the Conventions, however the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as “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.
Now, as I at first stated, torture, to me, is pain that lasts beyond the period it is applied. My father spanked me – (when I deserved it) – when he stopped the pain stopped. This was NOT torture. My friend was beaten by his father – broken bones, when his father stopped, the pain did not, this WAS torture. SEVERE pain, not incidental to the lawful sanctions.
An example of what I would consider mental torture would be: leading a man to believe that his wife/daughter/son/mother etc was killed by holding powers – this is a long term effect – and once he believes it the only way to prove it did not occur is to show him the “victim”. Making him wear a dog collar, while embarrassing, once the collar is off, no long term – no severe – effects.
Thanks for making me think about this; enjoy working my head. - CEB

Hugo
2006-01-12 11:47:01
Re: Amnesty International

Nice work ceb, it may be a while before I have a complete answer.

Copyright © 2002 - 2024 by Animus Pactum Consulting. All rights reserved. Privacy Information