Call it what it is:
TORTURE: The deliberate act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. (Latin: tortura, a twisting) - from Webster's Universal Unabridged English Dictionary
On November 18, 2011, Officer Lt. John Pike and other members of the University of California Campus Police Department, in affiliation with city police, committed what can clearly be seen as deliberate acts of torture on unresisting students of that University, and possibly on other California citizens as well.
In an act well-documented by cameras, videos, and other reports, these officers held demonstrators in place, sprayed crowd-control-level pepper sprays directly into their faces, and in some cases forced people who tried to shield themselves from the excruciating chemicals to take those chemicals into their eyes, noses, throats and lungs. Some reports claim that officers also forced people’s mouths open and then sprayed the chemicals – which project from the canisters at high pressure – directly into their faces or even down their throats.
In fairness to the officers, the protesters were warned that they would be sprayed; that said, this form of punishment for "failure to heed an officer" has already been declared to be excessive force by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: "...we held that police officers employ excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they use pepper spray upon an individual who is engaged in the commission of a non-violent misdemeanor and who is disobeying a police officer’s order but otherwise poses no threat to the officer or others."
Based upon both this court decision and related police policies, the severity of this resolution fits U.S. Legal's legal definition of police brutality. By the terms of Title 18 of the United States Code, it violates Federal law as well - a law that defines torture as "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."
The spray in question is classified by both the U.S. Armed Forces and California State law as a chemical weapon: "...law enforcement grade pepper spray has a Scoville heat unit of 5-5.3 million. The Pimento, Peperoncini and Banana pepper peppers have a Scoville heat unit of 100-900. Tabasco and Cayenne peppers are 30,000-50,000; Tabasco sauce (original) is 2,500-5,000 heat units." The United States Office of Special Counsel declared that "...there is a distinct possibility that this kind of CS exposure can significantly contribute to or even cause lethal effects." Given the toxicity and velocity of the spray alone, these officers inflicted injuries that might have (and still might) result in permanent injury or even death. As of this writing, several of the protesters remain hospitalized.
Whether or not "legal sanctions" include an officer's ability to punish citizens who refuse an order to move is a matter of debate. As for the deliberate infliction of pain, however, that is beyond question.
The officers' actions fit the legal, moral and dictionary definitions of torture.
As the videos clearly show, this was no self-defense situation. The demonstrators are sitting still, refusing to move. They are not fighting, not attacking, not resisting the officers with anything except inertia and resolve. According to eyewitness reports, Lt. Pike had been talking freely and in a friendly manner with some of the students he later gassed; they even offered him food and coffee.
It takes a special, even sociopathic, level of disassociation to share drinks and conversation with someone one day, and then torture them the next. Although a certain degree of emotional reserve is essential in law enforcement work, is this what we want from our police officers... especially ones hired by university campuses to guard our children?
Until now, the various acts of violence committed by police officers against Occupy demonstrators have been excused or justified by heated confrontations, hectic crowds, or the possibility of violent resistance. This is something different. On U.C. campus, we see police officers methodically inflicting pain as a tool of authority against people who present no threat to their safety.
And worst of all, some people are defending them. The Chancellor’s office initially justified the action by claiming - rather ironically - that the protesters presented a threat to U.C. students. Other defenders claim that the protesters were breaking the law, and thus were “asking for it.”
This is the slide of the Abu Garaib slope – the idea that cops are perfectly justified in using public torture as a tool of control, even when no threat to safety is present.
That thought should chill any thinking human being.
This must be punished. Apparently, an investigation into the incident has been ordered, and the university chancellor may well resign. These measures, however, are not nearly enough.
The officers responsible must be relieved of duty, arrested, and charged… with the school officials who ordered the attacks – and the officers who allowed them – charged as accomplices to the crime.
This is no longer a civil-rights issue or a matter of political debate. It is a matter of law, and of national survival.
Regardless of how you feel about the Occupy movement, the choice is clear:
Either we live in a society where police officers may publically torture citizens in our streets, or we do not.