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)
Contents
- 1 The Paper as it is shaping up
- 1.1 Overview
- 1.2 Short History of Torture
- 1.3 Torture Legislation or Law
- 1.3.1 Geneva Conventions and Protocols
- 1.3.2 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
- 1.3.3 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- 1.3.4 US Constitution and Amendments (Includes Bill of Rights)
- 1.3.5 US Anti-Torture Act (18 USC 113C Section 2340)
- 1.3.6 Landau Commission in Israel (1987-1999)
- 1.3.7 Legitimation of Torture (The Ticking Bomb Scenario)
- 1.4 Organizational use of torture
- 1.5 Organizations monitoring torture
- 1.6 Motivation for and efficacy of using torture in interrogation
- 1.7 Benefits / Repercussions of using torture
- 1.8 Is there an ethical case for torture?
- 1.9 Torture in times of war, times of peace
- 2 How the work will be divided
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
- Dictionary Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
- 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.
- Dictionary Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
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
Starting in about the sixth century B.C., Athenian legal procedure placed great value upon the sworn testimony of an Athenian citizen, building much of their code of laws 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. Athenian 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: torture of slaves, eventually grows to torture of lower classes and in cases of treason.
The Romans also used torture, and, like the Athenians, 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 Imperian 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
A. Before torture: combat and the ordeal
B. Roman canon law
1. Law for capital cases
a. System of proofs b. Confession as prime proof c. Means of using torture to obtain confession d. safeguards against false confession e. getting accomplices
2. Law for lesser offenses
C. Secular trials
1. Continental Europe: follow Roman canon law & torture
2. British Isles: Court of public opinion: no torture
D. The Inquisition 1. Innocent IV & Ad extirpanda: demanding torture of heretics
2. Heresy: no safeguards against false confession, since no
objectively observable act has occurred
3. Denunciation of "fellow heretics"
E. Extrajudicial torture 1. King John and the Jews 2. Tudors
V. Abolition of judicial torture
A. Replacement for Roman-canon system 1. Alternative punishments, allowing "lesser offense" procedure 2. Rise of jury system, as well as confidence in it
B. Moral arguments from Voltaire et al
C. Foucault's argument
D. Result: everyone bans torture
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
IX. Getting medieval again: modern torture techniques
X. More recent torture activity
Torture Legislation or Law
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 1) deals with humanitarian concerns for armed force members wounded in wars and dates originally to 1864. The second Convention(footnote 2) deals with concerns of "shipwrecked" casualties in wars and is rooted in the 1907 Hague Convention X. The third Convention(footnote 3) is concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war, and was originally drafted in 1925 and adopted in 1929. The fourth Convention (footnote 4) 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 5) and non-international(footnote 6) 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):
The fourth Geneva Convention states in Part III, Section 1, Article 32 (emphasis added):
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.
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 7, 8), might be illegal. The additional interrogation techniques(footnote 9) granted, then rescinded 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:
Footnotes (Geneva Conventions and Protocols)
- Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 12 August 1949.
- Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949.
- Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949.
- Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.
- 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.
- 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.
- US Army, Field Manual 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, Washington, DC, 8 May 1987.
- Filarowski-Sheaks, Christina, Interrogation Policy & the Global War on Terrorism, Presentation to Terrorism Cybersecurity Class, Berkeley, California, 30-Nov-2005
- Filarowski-Sheaks, Christina, ibid.
- Bush, George W, Address to the Press, Panama City, Panama, 07-Nov-2005.
- US Dept. of Defense, Directive Number 3115.09, November 3, 2005.
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. 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 aforementioned provisions:
UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a non-binding document, but the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) incorporates the langage into a binding agreement. The United States had a number of declarations and reservations included with its adoption of the Covenant.
"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 article was drawn and expanded from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed in the United Nation 10 December 1948:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Germane to this paper is the following:
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 1) 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 2) 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:
Footnotes (US Constitution and Amendments)
- 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.
- 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."
- Comey, James, Remarks of Deputy Attorney General James Comey Regarding Joes Padilla, Tuesday, June 1, 2004.
- Comey, James, ibid.
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, 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)
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 1) In the Ticking Bomb Scenario (footnote 2):
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 3) if the suspect still does not divulge the information under pressure of torture, he has not saved any lives either. 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 4), 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 many (footnote 5) 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 oversight?
Footnotes (Legitimation of Torture)
- Dershowitz, Alan, Why Terrorism Works, Chapter 4, 2002, Yale University Press, pp. 131-163.
- Dershowitz credits this description to Michael Walzer's article "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.
- 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.
- "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."
- 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.
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
- Human Rights Watch
- an independent, international nongovernmental organization
- receives funds from foundations and private individuals
- does not receive funds from the government or any government-funded agency
- founded under the name Helsinki Watch in 1978
- meant to monitor the Soviet Union's compliance with the Helsinki Accords
- other committees ("watches") were formed to monitor other countries
- in 1988, all the watches grouped under the name Human Rights Watch
- now is based in New York City
- the largest US-based human rights organization
- produce research reports exposing human rights conditions and abuses
- send fact-finding missions to investigate violations
- work to put international pressure on governments and other organizations to stop the abuse
- have offices in over ten cities worldwide
- set up temporary offices where they have fact-finding missions
- track developments in over 70 countries
- Amnesty International
- an international, non-governmental organization
- promotes the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards
- "Historically, the main focus of Amnesty International's campaigning has been:
- 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
- Over the years Amnesty International has expanded this mandate to encompass human rights abuses committed by non governmental bodies and private individuals (non state actors). It opposes abuses by armed political groups (in control of territory or operating in opposition to governments), such as hostage taking, torture and unlawful killings. It opposes human rights abuses against civilians and non combatants by both sides during armed conflict. Amnesty International has also targeted abuses in the home or community where governments have been complicit or have failed to take effective action." (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-faq-eng)
- gain information by talking to victims, witnessing trials, interviewing, reading and contacting reliable media outlets and sources
- have a specific campaign against the use of torture in the "war on terror"
- focused on the United States
- raise three demands
- stop.
- investigate.
- prosecute.
- United Nations
- World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)
- Association for the Prevention of Torture
- 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
- 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)
Torture in times of war, times of peace
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"