Interrogation and Torture Starting Point

Back to Project Team Page: Interrogation and Torture Team

Torture and Interrogation

Fall 2005 White Paper Term Project for: UW CSEP 590 tu (Homeland Security / Cybersecurity) UCB PP 190/290-009

Team Members:

• Barbra Ramos (UCB GSPP)
• Christopher DuPuis (UW PMP)
• Dennis Galvin (UW PMP)
• Eiman Zolfaghari (UW PMP)
• Sean David Cardeno (UCB GSPP)

The Paper as it is shaping up

Overview

Overall question: Under what circumstances, if any, should the use of torture to obtain information from prisoners be considered acceptable?

At present the United States is engaged in what it has termed the "Global War on Terror." In this effort many prisoners are taken by the US and its allies. Clearly some percentage of these prisoners may hold information which has the potential to: 1) prevent (or lessen the impacts of) terrorist acts against civillians; 2) prevent terrorist acts against military targets; 3) provide the means to break up the terrorist network(s); 4) provide the means to disrupt terrorist command and control activities. Similar situations may exist in many other areas of the world (Chechenya, Israel, etc) where a recognized government is "at war" with terrorist organizations.

The governments or occupying powers hold an assymetric relationship with the groups they are fighting. Decisions of the governments will be unilateral and any concessions toward humane treatment will not necessarily be reciprocated by the terrorist groups.

This paper does not directly examine issues of whether the detention of prisoners is justified, but rather the conduct of interrogation sessions and whether the use of torture in those sessions is ever justifiable.

Definitions:

• Interrogate:
  • Dictionary Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
    • verb: 1 : to question formally and systematically
• Torture:
  • Dictionary Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
    • noun: 2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
    • verb: 1 : to cause intense suffering to : TORMENT 2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain
  • [18 USC 113C Section 2340 US Anti-Torture Act]
    • (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
    • (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
      • (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
      • (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
      • (C) the threat of imminent death; or
      • (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
  • UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
    • For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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.

The definition of interrogate yields very little sense of the fact that subjects of interrogation do not generally want to divulge information. Interrogators often utilize coercive techniques to cause the subject to cede the desired information. These coercive techniques exist on a continuum from "direct questioning" through "torture" and "death" (Filarowski-Sheaks, Christina, Interrogation Policy & the Global War on Terrorism, Presentation to Terrorism Cybersecurity Class, Berkeley, California, 30-Nov-2005). Clearly this paper must examine the slippery slope between the extremes of coercive techniques.

Short History of Torture

I. Greece: torture of slaves and (some) foreigners

From the 7th to the 5th century B.C., the Greeks codified laws to govern disputes between individuals, replacing the earlier tradition of settling arguments with blood feuds with a system in which the state had the power to arbitrate between parties. The law codes, most notably the set of laws written by Solon for the city of Athens in 594 B.C., set out the ways in which a victim of a crime could be recompensed by the perpetrator--most crimes, including murder, were punished as harming the property of another, and punished accordingly, by demanding payment of a similar amount from the perpetrator to the victim. (For murder, the "payment" was the banishment of the murderer.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_law)

Greek legal procedure placed great value upon the sworn testimony of a citizen, building much of their trial procedure upon the idea that the honor and status of a citizen would compel him to speak the truth. As an additional inducement to speak truth, citizens found to have perjured themselves could be declared infamous and banished from the city. However, when the testimony of a non-citizen, such as a slave or a foreigner, was required, no such compulsion was recognized. Greek law therefore provided a means by which the word of a person without honor might be made acceptable as evidence in a trial: torture. (Peters, 13)

II. Rome: The Torture of Everyone But the Powerful

The Romans [CPD FIXME: Say something about Roman law. At least a bit.]

Beginning around the 5th century B.C., the development of Roman law was strongly influenced by the body of Greek law and its practices, in much the same way that Rome adopted Greek gods and philosophies.(Peters, p. 20)

The Romans also used torture, and, like the Greeks, they placed restrictions on the class of people who could be subjected to torture. At first, the law absolutely prohibited the torture of freeborn citizens, and it provided greater protection to to the slave than the Greek laws by allowing only slaves who had been accused of a crime to be tortured. Furthermore, torture of slaves was restricted to criminal, rather than civil, cases, again reducing the threat of torture to the slave. (Peters, 20) However, these protections were gradually stripped away, first by allowing slaves to be tortured over monetary disputes, then by allowing freemen of "low estate" to be tortured, and finally in allowing freemen of both humble and noble class to be tortured in cases of treason. (Peters, 18)

It is notable that Roman legal writings, questions as to the validity of evidence obtained under torture had already been raised. For example Ulpian (died 228) wrote the following warning on the use of torture, which was included in Justinian's Digest of 529:

  It was declared by the Imperial Constitutions that while confidence should not
  always be reposed in torture, it ought not to be rejected as absolutely unworthy
  of it, as the evidence obtained is weak and dangerous, and inimical to the
  truth; for most persons, either through their power of endurance, or through
  the severity of the torment, so despise suffering that the truth can in
  no way be extorted from them. Others are so little able to suffer that they
  prefer to lie rather than to endure the question, and hence it happens that they
  make confessions of different kinds, and they not only implicate themselves,
  but others as well.
  (quoted in Peters, p. 34)

Regardless of such warnings, torture remained part of the Roman law, which was later one of the formative influences on the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gratiani)

III. Getting medieval: torture techniques

The only record of torture methods used by the Greeks comes from their comic playwrights. For example, in the "Frogs" of Aristophanes, a character offers his slave's testimony, extracted through torture, as proof of his innocence. When asked which methods should be used to torture the slave, the character replies:

In any mode you please. Pile bricks upon him: stuff his nose with acid: Flay, rack him, hoist him; flog him with a scourge Of prickly bristles: only not with this, A soft-leaved onion, or a tender leek.

(Aristophanes, "The Frogs", written 405 B.C.E., translation available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html)

Many of the techniques mentioned in this passage remained in use for long afterwards.

The method of piling bricks upon the subject was notably still in use in England as the procedure of Peine forte et dure, used to coerce the defendant in a felony case into entering a plea of guilty or not guilty, until it was abolished in 1772. (In English law, a convicted felon's estate would be confiscated by the state, but no conviction was possible if the defendant refused to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. English courts overcame this loophole by pressing defendants with heavy weights until they either entered a plea or were crushed to death.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peine_forte_et_dure)

Flaying, as torture, involves the removal of a portion of the skin from the body. Flaying was also used as a method of execution, when a larger portion of skin was removed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaying)

The rack, a torture device used throughout Europe, consisted of a frame with a roller at both ends. The victim's hands were affixed by a chain to one roller, and his legs to the other, and the torture consisted of turning the rollers to pull the chains in opposite directions, thereby placing tension on the victim's body, especially his joints, which could be dislocated or even ripped apart by sufficiently strong tension. When equipped with ratcheting rollers, the rack was a very precise instrument for administering gradually increasing levels of pain to the subject. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_%28torture%29)

The process of "hoisting" a subject, more commonly known as "strappado" (or, in more modern usage, "Palestinian hanging"), consisted of binding the subject's hands together behind his back, and hoisting the subject into the air by an rope attached to his bound wrists. This technique causes intense pain, possible dislocation of the shoulder sockets, as well as long-term damage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strappado)

Flagellation, or "flogging", is any of a wide variety of methods of striking a victim with a flexible whip or switch, sometimes tipped with sharp ends to tear the victim's flesh. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation)

All of these tortures were clearly well-known from the time of Aristophanes. The Romans added their own inventions to the list: the lignum was a rack-like device to pull the legs apart, the ungulae consisted of flesh-ripping metal hooks, the mala mansio was the name given to imprisonment in a room too small for standing, sitting, or lying. (Peters, p. 35)

By the seventeenth century, new innovations such as the thumbscrew (a metal-studded vice for compressing the thumbs) and the legscrew (a larger variant of the thumbscrew to be applied to the legs) came into wide usage.

IV. Rise of torture: 12th-13th century Europe

In western Europe outside the Roman Empire, and in the formerly Roman territories as they were conquered by Germanic tribes, the formal legal traditions of Roman law were unknown. Rather than presenting evidence of guilt or innocense, parties in a trial (and their supporters) would give testimony under oath, with the outcome of the trial decided by the quality of the testimony (as measured by the number and reputation of supporters) for each party.

For cases in which the crime was sufficiently heinous or the defendants reputation so poor, trial by ordure could be invoked. (Peters, 42) In trial by ordure, if the accused could accomplish a painful and injurious task, such as walking nine paces holding a red-hot iron in his hands, without injury (or with rapid healing), he was declared innocent, on the theory that only divine intervention on the behalf of an innocent man could have made the feat possible.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal)

   B. Roman canon law

In order to govern the organization of the Roman Catholic Church and its members, the Church developed its own code of laws, known as Roman canon law, or simply canon law. These laws have a number of sources, including the Bible, canons of ecumenical councils, and letters of the popes. One other important source of canon law is classical Roman law.(The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Canon Law", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm)

Among the provisions of canon law was a law of proof for serious crimes, crimes in which a defendant found guilty could be put to death. Accoring to the law of proof, conviction of a defendant was only possible under one of two circumstances: either two eyewitnesses to the crime must testify to the defandant's guilt, or the defendant himself must confess to the crime. Circumstantial evidence, even to the extent of the accused being seen fleeing the scene of a murder with a bloody dagger, was insufficient to convict him. However, if there was a "half-proof" of the defendant's guilt, such as a single eyewitness or sufficiently significant circumstantial evidence, the defendant could be examined under torture. (Langbein, p. 4)

Because lawmakers understood the danger of a tortured defendant admitting to crimes he did not commit, this examination was bounded by certain safeguards. The questioner was not permitted to ask "suggestive" questions that convey the details of the crime to the subject. Instead, the questioner was supposed to extract the details from the subject by torture, and those details would then be verified independently, thereby reducing the possibility of the subject's accession to leading questions in order to avoid further pain. The details revealed by the subject were supposed to include information that only the guilty party could know. Further, confessions made while under torture were not admissible in proving the defendant's guilt, and any confession was required to be repeated later without torture in order to be admissible. (Langbein, p. 15)

However, these safeguards were far from foolproof. The prohibition against suggestive questioning, especially when accidental, was difficult to enforce, and no saving provision for the defendant, such as the declaration of a mistrial, existed. The requirement for details knowable only by the guilty party was likewise problematic, as a witness to a crime could know the same information. Finally, the requirement for confession to occur after torture had ceased was largely made moot by the fact that confession under torture was considered circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant another examination under torture. (Langbein, 8-9)

This law of proof from canon law had great influence on the secular laws, and the use of judicial torture extended throughout Europe. The one notable exception to this universal adoption of torture was in the British Isles, where trials were decided by "the collective judgement of an ad hoc panel of the folk, uttered as the voice of the countryside, unanimously and without rationale." The lack of standards of proof for a jury (for such it was) to convict a defendant made the question of torture moot, as "an English jury can convict a defendant on less evidence than was required as a mere precondition for interrogation under torture on the Continent." (Langbein, p. 77-78)

   D. The Inquisition
      

The best-known use of torture is the Inquisition. The Inquisition grew out of the Church's struggles against the spread of heresy. At first, the Church's response to teachings and beliefs against its orthodox doctrine was in the form of persuasive measures, such as missionary activities, episcopal visitations, and the formation of the Mendicant Orders. Beginning in 1184, when Lucius III issued the papal bull Ad abolendam, the Church took a more active approach, by creating the institution of the Inquisition to prosecute heretics. (Peters, 53-54)

At first, heresy was not considered a capital crime, and thus trials of heretics were not subject to the use of torture. Howeve, in 1254, Pope Innocent IV published Ad extirpanda, which included among its provisions:

...the official or Rector should obtain from all heretics he has captured a confession by torture without injuring the body or causing the danger of death, for they are indeed thieves and murderers of souls and apostates from the sacraments of God and of the Christian faith. They should confess their own errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, as well as their accomplices, fellow-believers, receivers, and defenders, just as rogues and thieves of worldly goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the evils which they have committed. (Peters, p. 65, quoting Lea, "Torture", p.188)

Also, although the Church prohibited its agents from taking human life, persons found guilty of heresy were turned over to secular authorities, who would punish the convicted by the laws of the land which, at least in the Holy Roman Empire, gave a sentence of death to heretics.

Although the legal procedures of the Inquisition were slightly milder than the accepted procedures in secular courts, in particular, the requirement that the torture used should neither injure the body nor cause danger of death, the Inquisition's reputation for mercilessness came in large part from its failure to observe the safeguards against false confession used by other courts. In particular, the fact that heresy was an intellectual crime made disproving the charge problematic.

   E. Extrajudicial torture
      1. King John and the Jews
      2. Tudors

V. Abolition of judicial torture

Around 1750, the nations of Europe abandoned both the law of proof from canon law and the requirement for torture to support it, turning instead to the jury system of determining guilt. A form of jury trial had always existed within canon law, and from there spread to the rest of Europe, but it was originally limited to minor infractions and suits. However, it was perceived as being so crude and inexact that it was unsuited to cases in which a man's life was at stake.

This changed in the 16th and 17th centuries. First, new penalties for punishing persons convicted of capital crimes came into wide use, especially sentencing convicts to work as oarsmen in naval galleys, imprisonment, and transporting convicts to overseas colonies to work as indentured servants. (Langbein, 27-44) Second, judges made use of these non-fatal punishments to justify first bending the rules of conviction by sentencing (to such a less final sentence) a person with sufficiently strong evidence of guilt without first finding him guilty (a process termed Verdactstrafe, or punishment for suspicion), and later using the existence of such nonfatal penalties rationalize using the jury trial system, as the formal system was required only in cases where death was the expected punishment. (Langbein, 47-48)

Even as the requirement for torture in criminal trials lessened, writers such as Voltaire and Montesquieu, in the spirit of the Age of the Enlightenment, condemned torture as barbaric, against the natural rights of man, and called for its abolition. (Peters, 76)

Both of these forces contributed to the spread of a ban on judicial torture across Europe, starting in the early 18th century, and encompassing most of Europe by the middle of the 19th century. (Peters, 91)

VI. Survival of torture as an engine of state: then to now

   A. Torture in law enforcement
      1. USA in 1930s
      2. South Africa
      3. Okhrana

   B. Torture in the interest of the party
      1. Nazi Germany
      2. USSR

   C. War
      1. Algeria
      2. Philippine-American War

   - Espionage

VII. Getting medieval again: modern torture techniques

VIII. More recent torture activity

Torture Legislation or Law

In this section of the paper, we briefly survey some relevant international law (treaties, conventions, etc.), and United States law. We also examine Israel's Landau Commission which attempted to codify what forms of torture were acceptable, and discuss some of the arguments advanced for legitimation of torture in "Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be Tortured?" from Alan Dershowitz' book Why Terrorism Works (footnote 1). The international laws examined here, at first glance, seem unequivocally intolerant of torture. However the principal world power interprets these laws in a very restricted manner, with many reservations. These interpretations make the United States far less accountable than a surficial examination indicates.

Geneva Conventions and Protocols

The Geneva Conventions comprise a set of four treaties and two protocols governing humanitarian treatment during the course of war. They are considered by many, the basis of international law relating to humanitarian issues. The treaties were last revised in 1949 in Geneva. The first Convention(footnote 2) deals with humanitarian concerns for armed force members wounded in wars and dates originally to 1864. The second Convention(footnote 3) deals with concerns of "shipwrecked" casualties in wars and is rooted in the 1907 Hague Convention X. The third Convention(footnote 4) is concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war, and was originally drafted in 1925 and adopted in 1929. The fourth Convention (footnote 5) relates to the humane treatment of "civillian persons" in times of war and dates originally to the 1907 Hague Convention IV. In 1977 two additional Protocols (I and II) were established addressing protection of victims of international(footnote 6) and non-international(footnote 7) wars respectively. The third and fourth Conventions and additional protocols are of most interest with respect to this paper.

The third Geneva Convention states in Part III, Section 1, Article 17 (emphasis added):

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageious treatment of any kind.

The fourth Geneva Convention states in Part III, Section 1, Article 32 (emphasis added):

The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civillian or military agents.

Protocol I states in Part IV, Section 3, Chapter 1, Article 75 (emphasis added):

• 1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
• 2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
  • (a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) Murder; (ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) Corporal punishment; and (iv) Mutilation;
  • (b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
  • (c) The taking of hostages;
  • (d) Collective punishments; and
  • (e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

It is interesting to note this quotation from Protocol I applies to all individuals "who do not benefit from more favourable treatment...." In this sense, there are no exceptions allowing for any individual to be subject to any of the maltreatments (including but not limited to torture) defined in paragraph 2 of Article 75. The United States goes to great care to claim that by presidential designation of Afghan and Al-Qaeda detainees as "unlawful combatants," the Geneva Conventions do not apply, (footnote 8) but that the detainees are to be treated "humanely" and "in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions...."

Protocol II states in Part II, Article 4 (emphasis added):

• 1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.
• 2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
  • (a) Violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;
  • (b) Collective punishments;
  • (c) Taking of hostages;
  • (d) Acts of terrorism;
  • (e) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
  • (f) Slavery and the slave trade in all their forms;
  • (g) Pillage;
  • (h) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

Taken as a whole, the Geneva Conventions and Protocols protect human beings against inhumane treatment (including torture). No where in the documents is torture explicitly authorized for any purpose whatsoever under any condition. The conventions bind their parties to humane treatment in all situations of armed conflict.

In this light, at least a portion of the interrogation techniques reportedly legal under FM 34-52(footnotes 9, 10, 11), may be illegal. The additional interrogation techniques(footnote 12, 13) granted, then rescinded (footnote 14) 6 weeks later, included "Use of stress positions," "Removal of clothing," "Use of phobias to induce stress," "Use of mild, non-injurious physical contact." Whether those techniques actually constitute torture is another matter entirely, but many of the additional techniques, infringe upon the "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment...." clauses of Protocols I and II.

In the conduct of the Global War On Terror, the United States has, perhaps, adopted a selective interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and transgressed the spirit if not the letter of the Conventions. To be fair, the United States claims their opponents are not High Parties to the Conventions, and are thus not protected by them. Others, both in the United States and abroad, differ on this interpretation. Does this make the conventions any less important? Are we better off if there are no Geneva Conventions at all? The answer to both of these questions is clearly no. At least some benefit is provided from those protections, and George Bush has clearly stated:

Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture.(footnote 15)

At least, this statement is unequivocal. The definition of torture is omitted, and the actual effect on the conduct of interrogations is not confirmable by neutral parties outside the actual interrogation sessions. Other evidence the Conventions and external pressure to comply with them are having an effect includes the following excerpt from DoD directive 3115.09:

It is DoD policy that: 3.1. All captured of detained personnel shall be treated humanely, and all intelligence interrogations, debriefings, or tactical questioning to gain intelligence from captured or detained personnel shall be conducted humanely, in accordance with applicable law and policy. [...] Acts of physical or mental torture are prohibited(footnote 16).

Clearly the US government may be approaching the intent of the more commonly understood interpretations of the Conventions.

UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

This convention was adopted 10 December 1984 and entered into force 26 June 1987. It was signed by the US 18 April 1988 and ratified by the US Senate 21 October 1994.

This Convention forms the most extensively and clearly stated agreement that torture is not to be tolerated in any form by agreeing parties. There is a clear definition (see definitions section in the introductory paragraphs of this paper), and a directive that "Each State Party shall take legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." There is a clear statement that "No exception circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, ... , may be invoked as a justification of torture. Additionally there is a clear statement that "refouler" (extraditing an individual to a state where he would be in danger of subjection to torture) is prohibited. (footnote 17) Finally there is a statement "Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law...." However, in actual fact the US signed the Convention subject to quite a number of declarations and reservations effectively crippling its agreement to each of the mentioned provisions:

"(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

"The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration."

"(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."

'On 3 June 1994, the Secretary-General received a communication from the Government of the United States of America requesting, in compliance with a condition set forth by the Senate of the United States of America, in giving advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention, and in contemplation of the deposit of an instrument of ratification of the Convention by the Government of the United States of America, that a notification should be made to all present and prospective ratifying Parties to the Convention to the effect that: "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."'

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (footnote 18) is a legally binding document containing a straight forward statement about torture:

Part III, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation."

This statement is rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (footnote 19): "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The United States had a number of declarations and reservations included with its adoption of the Covenant. Germane to this discussion is the following:

"(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

This reservation restricts the applicability of the Covenant to criminal proceedings in the US. It is unclear, in the case of its global war on terror, whether the US is bound by article 7. Clearly an argument can be made by the US Government that this article does not apply.

US Constitution and Amendments (Includes Bill of Rights)

The Constitution of the United States and its amendments apply to the residents of the United States. The Constitution is largely silent on the topics of detention, interrogation, torture. However several amendments to the Constitution speak at least peripherally to this topic:

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" without a warrant issued on "probable cause." The Fifth Amendment (footnote 20) includes the infamous provision against self-incrimination, as well as a guarantee "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, withut due process of law;" The provision requiring indictment of a Grand jury to hold an individual for serious crimes guarantees that individuals must be charged with a crime to be held for that crime. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that for criminal matters, accused individuals have the right to a speedy trial by jury, and access to counsel. The Eighth Amendment (footnote 21) protects against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The effect of these amendments to the Constitution on detention may be muddied because the US government believes it has the right to detain individuals in times of war, as long as they are not actually charged with a crime. This was the sense of the the Department of Justice's argument in the Jose Padilla case until they charged him with a crime. Prior to that time Padilla was held as an "enemy combatant" under orders from the US President. James Comey (Deputy US Attorney General) stated:

"Two years ago, the president of the United States faced a very difficult choice. After a careful process, he decided to declare Jose Padilla for what he was: an enemy combatant, a member of a terrorist army bent on waging war against innocent civilians. And the president's decision was to hold him to protect the American people and to find out what he knows."(footnote 22)

This seems to fly in the face of at least the rights to not incriminate oneself, the speedy trial provisions. US DOJ treads a fine line though they have not charged Padilla with a crime based on the original reason for his arrest and detention. Any attempt to prosecute him based on the information he provided under interrogation in custody will likely result in legal challenges based upon the rights to legal representation and against self-incrimination. No reliable information was available to determine what methods of interrogation were used to obtain the extensive information Comey released on June 1, 2004. (footnote 23)

US Anti-Torture Act (18 USC 113C Section 2340)

This Act clearly defines "torture" (see introductory definitions above) and sets forth what constitutes an offense and its punishability under terms of the act.

Section 2340A. Torture

• (a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
• (b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -
  • (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
  • (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
• (c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

It is interesting to note this act applies to offenses committed outside the United States (footnote 24), whether the alleged offender is a national of the US or not. It includes language allowing the US to pursue convictions against offenders who set foot in the United States. It seems apparent the act applies in the case of interrogations occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. This act may also temper some of the US acceptance of Conventions and Treaties particularly with regards to a somewhat more restricted definition of the word torture.

Landau Commission in Israel (1987-1999)

Israel's Landau Commission (footnote 25) of Inquiry was initially charged to "examine the General Security Service's methods of interrogation of terrorist suspects. The commission looked at then present Israeli and International law and standards relating to human rights and torture. It also examined the guidelines, laws and regulations of other "democraticies" germane to these areas.

The Commission set forth to define (in the translated words of the Commission) "with as much precision as possible, the boundaries of what is permitted to the interrogator and mainly what is prohibited to him." The Commission then approved for interrogation of terrorists, "the use of a moderate degree of pressure, including physical pressure, in order to obtain crucial information...." This was to be used in cases where the information could be used to prevent murder or the suspect was believed to have information about a terrorist organization (plans, locations or armaments, etc.) which could not otherwise be determined.

The Commission recommended use of "psychological forms of pressure...," and "only moderate physical pressure." They examined the use of force in interrogations by the British in Northern Ireland, and felt the European Human Rights Court Ruling under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights justifying the distinction between "torture" and "inhuman and degrading treatment" was in line with the Israeli proposals.

The Commission went further to ensure disproportionate pressure not be abused or overused established several measures of oversight intended to provide safeguards. The second section of the report actually detailed the exact forms of permissible pressure. This section was classified secret and thus not open to outside inspection. Some media and human rights groups reported, based on interviews with, and statements from released interrogation suspects (footnote 26), that torture occurred, the torture was systematic, considerably more widespread than a reading of the publicly available Commission guidelines, and the oversight less stringent than required. Eitan Felner reports (footnote 27):

Justice Landau himself publicly said that he felt betrayed by the GSS for regularly exceeding the constraints on the use of force imposed by his commission. "Apparently, there were double messages once again. There was the written code -- the Landau Commission -- and another, oral code in the field. And this is a terrible thing."

In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the Commission's approval of physical force:

In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the Commission's approval of physical force: “On 6 September 1999, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court unanimously outlawed methods of physical force that were routinely used in interrogations by the General Security Service (GSS). This decision voided the interrogation guidelines previously in effect, which included the use of interrogation methods that constituted torture, including violent shaking, holding and tying the interrogee in painful positions, sleep deprivation, covering the interrogee's head with a sack, and playing of loud music.” (footnote 28)

Once the Commission's guidelines are thrown out, the GSS can either stop the practices, or continue them but with no oversight mechanisms or other guards. An interesting quote from the CNN coverage (footnote 29) of the ISC decision states:

...the nine Supreme Court justices noted that the state still has the right to defend itself.

If the Shin Bet believes it must torture a suspect to reveal the location of a "ticking bomb," the torturer would be put on trial, but a court might accept the argument that physical force was necessary.

This appears to provide a back door, but on a very limited scale. The concern expressed in the quotation is one of protection for the torturers. What if the interrogator uses torture, but does not gain the desired information because the suspect does not know it? How might the court "accept the argument that physical force was necessary"? Is this after the fact determination acceptable for a democracy? Must we now accept the torturer's determination of necessity? The review in a criminal proceding might actually drive the abuse even more underground.

Israel may have been the first since World War II to implement a legal framework under which torture could be used in limited carefully controlled situations. However, considering Justice Landau's disappointment with the in the field adherence by Shin Bet (GSS) to commission standards, and the lack of effective oversight, this experiment in allowing torture under controlled conditions did not succeed.

Legitimation of Torture (The Ticking Bomb Scenario)

This section examines and extends some of the arguments and discussions posited by Dershowitz in "Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?"(footnote 30) In the Ticking Bomb Scenario (footnote 31):

... a decent leader of a nation plagued with terrorism is asked "to authorize the torture of a captured rebel leader who knows or probably knows the location of a number of bombs hidden in apartment buildings across the city, set to go off within the next twenty-four hours. He orders the man tortured, convinced that he must do so for the sake of people who might otherwise die in the explosions -- even though he believes that torture is wrong, indeed abominable, not just sometimes, but always."

Dershowitz subtitles his discussion "a case study in how a democracy should make tragic choices." Indeed we are presented with tragic choices few humans want to make. In this case either possible choice has tragic consequence. If the leader makes the choice to not torture the suspect (based on national principles) many people will die. Conversely, if he chooses to torture, then he has violated those national principles, and further (footnote 32) if the suspect still does not divulge the information under pressure of torture, he has not saved any lives either. Two other interesting possibilities arise: 1) The suspect does not have the information (footnote 33), but the interrogator believes he does, the suspect then tells the interrogator something to stop the torture, and again no lives are saved; 2) The suspect knows the correct information, but he also knows he can stop the torture by providing any information even though false, and again no lives are saved. Distinguishing between these two possibilities is suddenly very difficult. Given the quality of strategic intelligence in the real world, how can we know with certainty the suspect actually knows the information desired?

The very legitimization of the single case could open the door both within the country and abroad to more use of torture. Indeed there are tragic consequences to all the options in this hypothetical case.

So how do we resolve this dilemma? The decision is clear for Dershowitz' straw man (footnote 34), but more difficult for others. The September 11th attacks have, perhaps, made the decision to use non-lethal torture (in the ticking bomb case) more palatable to Americans. Most Americans dearly treasure their freedoms, yet a significant fraction (35%) (footnote 35) feel the need to compromise those freedoms in some case(s) for the greater good. Will the police, the FBI, the military and the CIA use these techniques off-the-record. and in an unregulated, non-transparent, non-accountable, non-democratic manner when situations arise? Or is it better to authorize torture, in very limited circumstances, under a "torture warrant," with strict judicial oversight?

Dershowitz argues that the rights of the suspect are better protected with the torture warrant, and that suspects might be more amenable to providing information if they know torture is in the realm of possibility. Ultimately, he believes there will be less torture because to use torture, an official would have to apply for a torture warrant through an official procedure with accountability, rather than do it off-the-books and deny it occurred. One danger Dershowitz discounts is that judicial authorization of torture could set precedents.

Still troubling in all of this is that our criminal justice system is based on presumption of innocence. The scenario does not allow for all the possibilities, some of which could have "tragic" consequence. As noted above, the suspect might not posess the information. Or the suspect could be the wrong person (for instance, he had the same name (footnote 36)) due to faulty intelligence. Supposedly the information is to be extracted for the good of our society, but there remains the possibility of error.

Legitimation of torture, even under a very prescribed set of conditions would be a tragic choice, but is the alternative any less tragic?

Footnotes (Torture Legislation or Law)

1. Dershowitz, Alan, Why Terrorism Works, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2002. 271 p.
2. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 12 August 1949.
3. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949.
4. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949.
5. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.
6. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
7. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
8. Memorandum for the General Counsel fo the Department of Defense, Subject: Detainee Interrogations, Jan 15 2003, "Working Group Report: Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism....", Section II, part A.
9. US Army, Field Manual 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, Washington, DC, 8 May 1987.
10. Filarowski-Sheaks, Christina, Interrogation Policy & the Global War on Terrorism, Presentation to Terrorism Cybersecurity Class, Berkeley, California, 30-Nov-2005
11. US Dept. of Defense, Joint Task Force 170, Memorandum for Commander, 11 October 2002, "Subject: Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies"
12. General Counsel of the US Dept. of Defense, Action Memo, November 27, 2002. "Subject: Counter-Resistance Techniques". Includes Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's approval and annotation "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
13. Filarowski-Sheaks, Christina, ibid.
14. US Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for Commander USSOUTHCOM, January 15, 2003, "Subject: Counter-Resistance Measures"
15. Bush, George W, Address to the Press, Panama City, Panama, 07-Nov-2005.
16. US Dept. of Defense, Directive Number 3115.09, November 3, 2005.
17. Memorandum for the General Counsel fo the Department of Defense, Subject: Detainee Interrogations, Jan 15 2003. "Working Group Report: Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism...." This document indicates this provision is to be interpreted in a considerably more restricted way: "The U.S. understanding relating to this article is that it only applies if it is more likely than not that the person would be tortured."
18. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966. Entry into force 23 March 1976.
19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, non-binding declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly, 10 December 1948.
20. The right to not self-incriminate may not be as clearcut as the American public believes. In the case of Leon v. Wainright heard by the 11th Circuit Court in 1984, a group of policemen beat a kidnapper into revealing the location of his captive. The kidnapper later on confessed to the crime, but in court argued the confession was obtained through the beating. The court sided with the prosecution in this case drawing the distinction between the victim location information extracted forcefully, and the confession which was ruled voluntary and thus admissable as evidence in court.
21. The US Supreme Court ruled on the Eighth Amendment in a Corporal Punishment case (Ingraham v. Wright, 1977): "An examination of the history of the Amendment and the decisions of this Court construing the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment confirms that it was designed to protect those convicted of crimes." The case involved 2 Florida students who were paddled, then sued, claiming "cruel and unusual punishment."
22. Comey, James, Remarks of Deputy Attorney General James Comey Regarding Joes Padilla, Tuesday, June 1, 2004.
23. Comey, James, ibid.
24. A provision in the Patriot Act specifically considers "the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign states..." to be under the jurisdiction of the US. Under this reasoning, the Memorandum for the General Counsel fo the Department of Defense, Subject: Detainee Interrogations, Jan 15 2003, states "As such the Torture Statute does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel at GTMO."
25. State of Israel, Minstry of Justice, Israel's Interrogation Policies and Practices, December 1 1996. Web reference: http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Israel-s+Interrogation+Policies+and+Practices+-+De.htm
26. However, the Public Committe Against Torture in Israel (http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=1) reports these methods included: 1) Typing up detainee in painful positions for hours or days on end; 2) Solitary Confinement; 3) Confinement in tiny cubicles; 4) Beatings; 5) Violent "shaking"; 6) Deprivation of sleep and food; 7) Exposure to cold or heat; 8) Verbal, sexual and psychological abuse; 9) Threats against the individual or the individual's family; 10) lack of adequate clothing or hygiene.
27. Felner, Eitan, Torture and Terrorism; Painful Lessons from Israel, pp. 28-43, Chapter 3 of: Torture, A Human Rights Perspective, New York, Human Rights Watch, 2005.
28. B'TSelem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) statement on Torture http://www.btselem.org/english/Torture/Torture_by_GSS.asp
29. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9909/06/israel.torture/
30. Dershowitz, Alan, Why Terrorism Works, Chapter 4, 2002, Yale University Press, pp. 131-163.
31. Dershowitz credits this description to Michael Walzer's article "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.
32. The case that torture does not work is not addressed in Dershowitz' analysis of the possible tragic consequences, and it is the one doubly tragic.
33. Recall "... captured rebel leader who knows or probably knows..."
34. "The case against torture, if made by a Quaker who opposes the death penalty, war, self-defense, and the use of lethal force against fleeing felons, is understandable."
35. In an ABC News Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/torture_poll_040527.html) conducted in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal, 35% of Americans felt torture of terrorism suspects was acceptable in some cases. This is clearly smaller than the near unanimity Dershowitz reports for his speaking audiences. But, 35% is still a large percentage of the American populace.
36. Recall that US Senator Ted Kennedy was on a no-fly list because of same or similar name. Granted this was a procedural error with trivial consequence, but we have no guarantees such procedural errors will not occur with tragic consequence.

Organizational use of torture

• Police, Military, Anti-state forces (revolutionary, terrorist), Intelligence agencies.
• Nations involved in torture (US, Russia, Israel?, China?)
• Examples:
  • 1.US Military/CIA use of torture (Extraordinary Rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo)

Organizations monitoring torture

In response to the growing awareness of the widespread use of torture and other human rights violations, many organizations have developed in its wake. These organizations include the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the World Organization against Torture, and the Association for the Prevention of Torture. There have also been responses made and investigations conducted by other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

Many of these organizations came about due to the amount of silence and lack of investigation surrounding human rights issues. Some of these groups conduct their own fact-finding missions and present their own reports on what goes on within countries around the world. They present the public, governments, and other organizations with this information, in order to expose these violations which would otherwise go unchecked. It is a part of their work to build mass movements around these issues and to make those in power accountable to the public they serve for what goes on.

• United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and the Committee Against Torture (CAT)

The United Nations is a broad coalition of countries whose members who work towards following international law and guidelines. Its charter was officially ratified on October 23, 1945 and there were 51 original member states that approved it. The United Nations states purpose is “to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.” As such, the United Nations sets the standards for international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its funds come from its member states.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR) was established in 1946. It is this body’s specific duty to examine, monitor, publicly report on human rights conditions in certain countries and areas. They continually develop and establish human rights standards. Starting in 1985, the UNHCR appoints a Special Rapporteur on Torture. It is this person’s duty to investigate human rights conditions in all countries, regardless of whether or not the country has ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Special Rapporteur appeals to the member states for those at risk for torture or in regards to past instances of torture, conducts fact-finding missions, and submits annual reports .

The Committee against Torture (CAT) is made up of independent experts that “monitor the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in State parties.” It was created at that convention back in 1984 and they hear complaints both from States and individuals. States are required to send yearly reports to CAT and to allow them to conduct inquiries and visits if need be. However, if they receive complaints from individuals, they cannot hear and pass judgement on them unless the State of the party concerned has previously recognized the power of CAT to do so.

The United Nations has continually been criticized for its membership and their neglect in regards to human rights. Countries such as the US, with its use of extraordinary rendition, have violated the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, as the President of the board of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) and past chair of Amnesty International USA, Chip Pitts states, “the international legal mechanisms remain weak” and that they “have been weakened by powerful nations… especially the United States” The United Nations is mired in too much bureaucracy in order to move effectively, especially when some countries decide to act out on their own and push their own agendas.

• Amnesty International (AI)

An international, non-governmental organization, Amnesty International was founded by British lawyer Peter Peter Benenson in 1961. It does not accept money from governments or governmental organizations. They handle human rights both on an individual case and general policy basis. Today there are about 7,500 AI groups around the world. AI was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 for their work with human rights. AI bases its work on the human rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. Their campaigns have related to the following:

• • to free all prisoners of conscience
  • to ensure a prompt and fair trial for all political prisoners
  • to abolish the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
  • to end extrajudicial executions and "disappearances"
  • to fight impunity by working to ensure perpetrators of such abuses are brought to justice in accordance with international standards

Furthermore, their work has gone beyond these points and now cover wrongs by non state actors, armed political groups that egage in inhumane practices such as torture, and even those done in domestic spaces within the home. Amnesty International gathers information by contacting victims, attending trials, interviewing, and reading and contacting reliable media outlets and sources. They currently have a specific campaign against the “war on terror,” bringing in to focus the human rights violations, including torture, that the United States has committed thus far in the name of anti-terrorism and democracy. Their three main demands are to stop, investigate, and prosecute. These demands pertain to the U.S.’s break with international standards. AI calls the U.S. to stop things such as extraordinary rendition, coercive interrogation, and close down Guatanamo Bay and other detention centers. Instead, the U.S. should have an independent commission to investigate all U.S. agencies in regards to detention, interrogation and the “war on terror” and the U.S. must prosecute human rights violators .

Amnesty International has come under fire because of its stands against the United States government, especially due to the charge that the U.S. maintains “an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisions, into which people are being literally disappeared, held in indefinite incommunicado detention without access to lawyers or a judicial system or to their families.” President Bush and Vice President Cheney both attacked and vilified AI for its report and comments and others have spoken out and called Amnesty International anti-American and left-wing. AI has also been attacked with biased coverage and misinformation .

• Human Rights Watch (HRW)

Human Rights Watch is an independent, international nongovernmental organization that receives funds from foundations and private individuals . HRW does not receive funds from the government or any government-funded agency. Back in 1978, HRW began under the name Helsinki Watch. Helsinki Watch was meant to monitor the Soviet Union’s Compliance with the Helsinki Accords, which was the Final Act of the Security and Cooperation in Europe. It called for the party States to “respect human rights and fundamental freedoms” and conform to the United Nations Charter and the UNDHR. Later, other “watcheds” were formed to monitor other countries.

In 1988, all the watches grouped under the name Human Rights Watch and the group is now based in New York City. HRW is the largest US-based human rights organization. Their work mainly includes the production of research reports exposing human rights conditions and abuses, the sending of fact-finding missions to investigate violations , and the placement of international pressure on governments and other organizations to stop abuse .

HRW have offices in over ten cities worldwide and they also set up temporary offices where they have fact-finding missions. HRW tracks developments in over 70 countries. They hold an International Film Festival and give grants to writers that have been been politically persecuted. Current work in the area of torture and abuse include the release of a list of “ghost prisoners” being held by the CIA and exposing the US’s use of torture against suspects and detainees . Their website provides materials that cover the unlawfulness of torture, according to both US and international law. They have letter-writing campaigns to governments and companies that partake in human rights violations whether through directio action or by indirect support (such as supplying machinery or funds to violating governments).

HRW has been criticized, mainly by the governments whose human rights violations they expose. A Chinese foreign minister accused HRW of slander and malicious attacks after a report on the Chinese government’s abuse of Falungong members back in 2000. However, like many of the other groups, Human Rights Watch’s work has been lauded as well. Their past exposés and campaigns have help make strides in changing governmental policies and have helped gain media and public attention and support for the issues they raise.

• World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)
• Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Motivation for and efficacy of using torture in interrogation

• Extract confessions.
• Get names of accomplices.
• Get strategic information?
• Get details of terrorist plots.
• Quality of information extracted?
• Resistance to medieval techniques compared to resistance to modern techniques.
• Torture isn't a fast process
• Strategies against torture for terrorist organizations

Benefits / Repercussions of using torture

• The Effects of Torture

Regardless of whether or not torture satisfies the immediate requirement of getting information from a prisoner, there is always the question of the effects that torture has after the act is completed. What happens to the torture victim? What about the interrogator who committed the act? What about the society the torture victim is from? Or the society that the interrogator is from? Is the information that one gets from this act more valuable than the effects this act has on the environment around it?

• Effects on the torture victim

Depending on the form of torture, the effects of torture on a human being can be short-lived or long-lasting. Because of the definition of what torture is, it inherently has a high probability to permanently affect a human being after the act is done. Whether it does or not depends on numerous factors, including the type of torture performed, the physical, mental, and/or spiritual state of the torture victim, and the treatments, if any, given to the torture victim after the act. As Douglas Johnson suggests in [G], the effect of torture in some cases is more that just gain of information, which can be a short-term gain, but a ‘systematic silencing of dissent and stripping communities of their leaders.’ Whether the torturer had this intention or not, the possibility of such a permanent loss of a human being is possible and has happened.

• Effects on the interrogator

• Effects on the torture victim’s society.

• Effects on the interrogator’s society.

• [G] The Effects of Torture Q&A: Douglas Johnson

http://www.osce.org/item/44.html Summary: That torture is a tool used by those in power to instill fear into a population. “On the individual level, torture is about shame and humiliation” “On a larger level, it’s a systematic attempt to silence dissent and stripping communities of their leaders.”

• [H] False confessions after repeated interrogation: the Putten Murder Case

WILLEM A. WAGENAAR http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=125726

• [I] The Psychosocial Effects of Torture, Mass Human Rights Violations, and Refugee Trauma: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework.

Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 187(4):200-207, April 1999. SILOVE, DERRICK M.B.Ch.B., M.D., FRANZCP 1

• [J] Does Torture Work?

Darius Rejali http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/

• [K] The Center for the Victims of Torture - Eight Lessons on Torture

http://www.cvt.org/main.php/Advocacy/TheCampaigntoStopTorture/WhatCVTknowsaboutTorture

• [L] The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib

by Karen J. Greenberg (Editor), Joshua L. Dratel (Editor), Anthony Lewis

• Diplomatic and Political
• Decreased civil liberty?
• Increased safety of society?
• Public Reactions (internal, external)
• Media image

Is there an ethical case for torture?

The ticking bomb (Dershowitz and others)

How the work will be divided

The team assembled on Wednesday, 09-Nov, and we are still in the process of determining the overall shape of the topic to be covered in the paper. We have sketched a preliminary (subject to change) outline of areas to investigate. Each team member will then identify an area they will maintain primary responsibility for. As progress is made in each area, the information should be posted to the wiki, and other team members should offer constructive criticism, advice, etc.

We have a starting point reading / resource / reference list which will be added to over the course of the initial phases of the project.

So far, the following team members have expressed preliminary interest in portions of the overall paper:

• Christopher DuPuis: "History of Torture", "Efficacy of Torture in Interrogation"
• Dennis Galvin: "Torture Legislation / Law"
• Barbra Ramos: "Nations involved in torture", or "Organizations Monitoring Torture"
• Sean Cardeno: "Organizational Use of Torture"
• Eiman Zolfaghari "Benefits / Repercussions of Using Torture"