A coalition of more than 200 religious groups urged U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday to sign an order, once he takes office, banning torture by any federal government entity.
“This is an opportunity where one official could … with one stroke of a pen, really change history here,” said Linda Gustitus, president of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
The group, which has been pressing the issue since 2006, also wants the U.S. Congress to establish a special committee to investigate the use of what the Bush administration has called “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on terrorism suspects detained after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
What is torture?
Is it psychological manipulation?
How about an uncomfortable environment (too hot or too cold)?
The infliction of physical pain is obviously torture. Is psychological pain any different (good cop/bad cop, yelling, befriending someone to get information etc.)?
The definition of torture is kind of like the definition of pornography. “I don’t know what it is, but I know it when I see it.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
How about asking KSJ to stop torturing her priests, bishops, vestries, and standing committees…
I tend to agree with Bill’s observation above. The problem is that even using the “I know when I see it” standard “W” and some of his people have crossed that line. This country has definitely torture people under his administration and we have shipped people off to other countries like Syria and Egypt for interrogation when we needed information and did not want to get our own hands dirty.
I voted for the man in 2000 (mea culpa mea culpa…) but I think you could make a pretty strong case that his administration has committed some acts that would qualify as war crimes under generally accepted principals of international law.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
I am very skeptical that any U.S. Administration– including the Carter Administration– has actually implemented a deliberate, conscience-based restriction on the use of torture in intelligence and covert operations. Should the Obama Administration claim such restrictions I will remain skeptical for 30 to 40 years before accepting the claimed restrictions were actually implemented,
I agree with Marion on this one. There is absolutely NO evidence that W’s Administration has used torture techniques on any prisoner of war or combatant.
I wonder if the beheading of non-combatants is considered a war crime? Social justice seems a little more than one-sided and political.
Is being ripped out of the womb so as to die torture? Early or late-term?
I think the ban against torture could also be used to outflank
the abortion rights advocates. I am certain films could be made
available to illustrate the point.
Re 4
libraryjim,
Outside the United States water boarding is almost universally considered a form of torture by international law experts and lawyers. And more than a few of us in the United States agree with that assessment. The policy of extraordinary rendition to countries known to practice torture is well documented and has been proven in foreign courts of law despite efforts to block such inquiries by the United States government. You really should do a little homework before making such sweeping and demonstrably erroneous statements.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
I think Marion R. is probably on the mark here. #8 makes a good point; films of the tortured and dismembered bodies of little babies compared to the waterboarding of KSM would be instructive.
[i] Outside the United States water boarding is almost universally considered a form of torture by international law experts and lawyers [/i] —Ad Orientem [#9]
Yes, indeed. And the U.S. government took the same view before Bush. The U.S. Army still does.
Just imagine what waterboarding enthusiasts would say if a foreign country used it against U.S. soldiers (with or without trial). It would suddenly become . . . torture!
I was water boarded during SERE training and I did not think of it as torture then and I don’t now. It was very unpleasant but not torture.
Keep this up and we will stop arming our soldiers with guns that fire lethal bullets and will insist that we use negotiation techniques in order to get the enemy to do what we want him to do.
GET REAL! War is a tough, dirty and mean business and the side that wins is the side that physically overpowers and often destroys the enemy. The side that ‘plays nice’ is asking its soldiers to risk and sacrifice their lives for no gain against an enemy force.
Yes, there are rules in warfare such as not shooting prisoners or inflicting phnysical harm on prisoners, but there are also realities such as the immediate no-nonsense need for information from prisoners that will save many lives, both military and civilian, on one’s own side. In previous wars where military force faced military force, it was much easier to deal with the interrogation of prisoners. Either the POW offered up information under intense questioning or he did not. If he didn’t, he was processed as for internment as a POW.
In today’s world we are facing terrorists who often feel that they will receive a reward in heaven for killing as many of us as possible, military or civilian. Consequently, their weapons take insidious forms such IEDs or worse. These enemy combatants are not enemy soldiers. They are terrorists, that is civilian criminals who attack in as devious and evil a manner as possible. Yet, even though they are the lowest form of criminal, they most often cannot be dealt with using police methods if they are to be stopped before they do damage. The use of police apprehension and a trial in a court of law will not stop them from committing their terrorist acts.
Treating terrorists as ‘nice people’ who just happen to belong to an enemy army won’t stop their terrorist attacks. But armed intervention by a military force posserssing “credible and actionable” intelligence can stop them before they commit more murders.
If intelligence indicates that a terrorist threat is immediate, that is, expected to be implemented within a week or so and a terrorist linked to that threat has been apprehended is available, then failure to obtain intelligence from that terrorist that will help prevent that implementation becomes an act of ‘dereliction of duty’ on the part of the intelligence and milititary personal responsible for stopping that terroist implementation.
Remember, as recently as World War II and during the first several years of the occupation of former-NAZI Germany, persons committing violent acts against military forces who were not wearing miltary uniforms were often summarily executed after their capture.
12. you VOLUNTEERED. There’s a world of difference between training and torture. Intent.
Dehumanizing prisoners is unacceptable behavior for Christians. Being dehumanized/tortured during training so you know what to expect when the BAD GUYS get ahold of you, well.. that should say it all.
We’ve fallen a long way since Pres Truman was involved in discussions on how many pingpong tables to provide German POWs in US camps.
Reply to Chris (#13).
German “werewolves” when captured during the early occupation of Germany under President Truman were often executed by the occupying forces, including the U.S., France and Great Britain.
As a veteran, I agree completely with AnglicanFirst’s comments. Further, I would contend that we should exercise our rights under the Law of War.
[blockquote]Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.
By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.
________________
During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.
________________
Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.[/blockquote]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
When we encounter terrorists or enemy combatants that are not wearing a uniform and/or are not part of an organized military unit, they can and should be executed in the field. If intelligence can be obtained from them, so much the better. Offer them mercy in exchange for intelligence. If they refuse, execute them on the spot. These [our enemies] are not soldiers and they are not ordinary criminals. The closest they come to being “criminals” is that in some aspects they are like pirates, but they are not pirates. They are not even guerrillas or partisans. They commit acts of war without being part of a military unit and without being in uniform. They are terrorists. If, at the end of a firefight, they throw down their arms, they remain terrorists. They do not suddenly aquire the rights of legitimate combatants. They can be executed on the spot at the discretion of the leader in charge.
Our soldiers are not policemen. They are soldiers. They do not “arrest” the enemy. They kill the enemy. That is their purpose. It is a God given role.
[b][i]For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil. ~ Romans 13:4[/b][/i]
The soldiers are “ministers of God” every bit as much as the priest that stands before you on Sunday. They bear the sword, the power of death, and use it against evil doers…such as terrorists. They execute wrath and revenge at God’s will. It is just to execute murderers that violate the Law of War and that commit acts of war while not wearing a uniform or being part of a military unit.
#14, yes, but were they tortured for information before summary execution? I’m not sure that summary execution of spies, etc during wartime qualifies as torture, so I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make.
We’re supposed to be the good guys. The good guys don’t torture their prisoners. The US has a fairly good history of treating its EPWs well. I was always taught that torturing EPWs and shooting surrendering enemy combatants was a surefire way to make the enemy fight harder and kill more of our guys since they think they have nothing to lose. It’s not only sinful, it’s stupid and counterproductive. (which is true of sin, generally)
And I forgot to mention, thank you for your service to our great nation. God bless you.
The use of the sword to kill by its very nature allows for the use of less harmful means to achieve the goal. “Torture” which does not kill and which leaves no lasting harm can hardly be considered more evil of immoral than killing. It seems the “reasoning” here against torture has less to do with clear logic than with emotional squeemishness.
Chris, during the Battle of the Bulge, German soldiers out of uniform (wearing American uniforms) were executed as spies.
17, yes, I’m aware, but I’m asking what it has to do with torture?
Ask the survivors of Cabanatuan Prison Camp about torture and maltreatment at the hands of Japanese soldiers. They were treated FAR worse than PWs have been treated by our own troops. And many of those Americans were civilians.
Chris, I think that torture is inappropriate and should not be used even on terrorists and other illegal combatants. So is guess the ssue then is what is torture and can it be objectively defined?
Terrorists are most definitely NOT EPWs. They are not soldiers. According to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS, Article 4, they do not meet the criteria to be classified as Prisoners of war and are therefore not entitled to the protections of the convention. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
These guys are the ones who slowly saw off the heads of their prisoners and videotape it for the world to see. They wear civilian clothes and blend in with the local civilians. They deploy deadly weapons against our personnel and innocent civilians, and then blend back in with the civilian population. They use threats and terror to keep the civilians in line. They murder Iraqi police recruits standing in line. They detonate bombs in crowded markets. They are not EPWs. They do not fall under the Geneva Convention. They are outside the protections of the Law of War.
US domestic law does not apply overseas. Military commanders are within the law, and I would argue that they are within moral boundaries, to do with these people what ever is necessary to safeguard U.S. military personnel, civilians, and religious/historic property from the predations of the terrorists; so long as our forces conduct themselves within the guidelines of U.S. law, and the orders and regulations that they are sworn to uphold.
My nephew is in theatre right now. I hope his leaders will do what is necessary to win what ever engagement they find themselves in and to safeguard the soldiers in their care, the civilians in the AO, and the religious/historic buildings in the AO.
Sick & Tired [#21]: Take a good look at article 5 of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
[blockquote] Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 [e.g., are prisoners of war], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. [/blockquote]
Has a competent U.S. tribunal determined that the Guantanamo detainees are unlawful combatants rather than prisoners of war?
Article 5 only takes effect, “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4.” If there is no doubt, Article 5 is moot.
Example: A combatant wearing civilian clothes throws down a weapon and surrenders. Since the combatant failed to have “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” such as a uniform or part of a uniform, there is no doubt that the combatant is not an EPW. There would be no need to have a competent U.S. tribunal make a determination.
Furthermore: “Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian “is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.” And, “Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.” ~ Mr. Yoo, law professor at Berkeley
Source of quotes: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144
Glad to see Anglican First beat me to the punch. I also experienced the “pleasure” of the waterboard during SERE. I have yet to hear any critic admit to such personal experience. And whether training or live, the action is the same. So Chris Molter’s distinction fails.
However, I think that we are overlooking the most important point of this debate. As Americans, we all actually care about avoiding torture. Debate to decide where to draw those lines manifests that concern.
Those who are concerned with US torture might want to look into the “interrogation” of German POWs after WW2, especially those chosen as scapegoats for the deaths at Malmedy [far more likely due to confusion of war than the deliberate media-inspired slaughter depicted in the movie]. Real torture, including fake hangings, went well beyond what we see today, and that was in a post-war, peactetime environment.
[i] If there is no doubt, Article 5 is moot. [/i] —Sick & Tired [#23]
If the case against most Guantanamo admits of “no doubt,” then why didn’t the U.S. government bring them to trial [i] years [/i]
ago?
Looks like the government may not, in the case of many if not most detainees, have enough evidence of guilt to convict them in any tribunal—civilian, military, or kangaroo—but doesn’t want to admit it.
[blockquote]If the case against most Guantanamo admits of “no doubt,†then why didn’t the U.S. government bring them to trial years ago?[/blockquote]
Because, if there is no doubt that they were civilians that were “definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States” they “shall not be entitled to claim such rights”, like a trial. If that is the case, they are not Prisoners of War and there is no requirement to ever bring them to trial.
BTW, I don’t know if there is a doubt about their status. There may be. If there is, then they should have tribunals to weigh the evidence and render a verdict. My point is, that if there is no doubt of their status as non-Prisoners of War, then they do not have a right to a trial. They can be executed at any time by the authorities.
As far as torture is concerned, we have laws governing our conduct. The question, I believe, revolves around the definition of torture that our nation has accepted. In my opinion, nothing that is done to our U.S. service men in the course of their training [sleep deprivation, cold, heat, even water boarding during Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training] constitutes torture. If it does, we should stop doing it to our servicemen and women immediately. If it is tolerable for our servicemembers to endure for training, it is certainly tolerable for enemy prisoners to endure. That goes for the personal space that they have, too. If a U.S. sailer has to hot bunk on a ship or sub, an enemy prisoner can too.
[i] If there is no doubt of their status as non-Prisoners of War, then they do not have a right to a trial. They can be executed at any time by the authorities. [/i]
But only after conviction of a capital crime. Being an unlawful combatant is not in itself such a crime.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] Nothing that is done to our U.S. servicemen in the course of their training constitutes torture. [/i]
We do not, so far as I am aware, hog-tie our soldiers and leave them for days in their own excrement. Nor do we make them believe that we actually plan to kill them. When soldiers die during training, it’s because someone made a mistake. Severe training has benefits for the soldier as well as the service.
You can’t separate the pain from the context.
— Having a leg sawn off without anesthesia, Civil War-style, would be horrible in any event. But it would be more horrible if done as torture than if done with your consent to save your life.
— Waterboarding (as I understand it) elicits an acute fear of drowning. This terror would be greater if done by people you believed wanted to kill you rather than by people you knew wanted to make you stronger and better able to survive.
— Remember the mock executions staged in Castro’s Cuba? The perpetrators intended them as psychological torture. Yet at a purely physical level they merely involved getting up early for a little walk.
[i]”But only after conviction of a capital crime. Being an unlawful combatant is not in itself such a crime.”[/i]
I do not believe that it accurate. Your phrase, “conviction of a capital crime” implies a trial. As stated before, those individuals that are “definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States†are not entitled to a trial. That isn’t just my opinion, it is the opinion of Mr. Yoo, law professor at Berkeley. His opinion agrees with the training in the Law of War that I recieved during my 17 years of military service. Being an unlawful combatant, according to the training I recieved, is grounds for being shot. For instance, if I had engaged in hostile acts against the enemy while wearing civilian clothes rather than my uniform, according to the training I received, I would have been liable to have been sumarily executed by the enemy if captured. Would you please site some supporting documentation for your opinion?
[i]”We do not, so far as I am aware, hog-tie our soldiers and leave them for days in their own excrement.”[/i]
True. Those that did these acts were prosecuted and convicted of their crimes. No one here is defending those actions and they are not pertinent to the discussion.
[i]”You can’t separate the pain from the context.”[/i]
Yes, I can.
Oops. Sorry for the typo. Above should read: “I do not believe that [b]is[/b] accurate.