It's long after the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stories broke. You'd think this diary would be unnecessary. But inspired by a question from dKos user brahma, I felt it would be helpful to break down the definitions of torture, according to the Geneva Conventions and others. It is my contention that the United States has broken international law by torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and any other location where torture has taken place.
So, what is torture? Is
waterboarding torture?
Cold treatment? Standing? Sleep deprivation? Let's take a look.
First, the standard dictionary definition.
* American Heritage Dictionary:
tor*ture (tôr'ch?r)
n.
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
"Severe," "excruciating" pain, whether physical or mental. But who defines what's severe or excruciating? I'll address that below.
Next, the Geneva Convention definitions. The U.S. is a signatory to these conventions, which means they are law in the U.S., as much as laws against burglary or assault and battery.
Convention Against Torture I (Geneva Convention), Article I:
1. 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.
Again, "severe." Also note: 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. That means you, Lynndie England. That also means you, General Geoffrey Miller, and everyone down the food chain from you who allowed torture to happen.
Another note: whether physical or mental. So yes, using humiliation, sleep deprivation and fear counts as torture.
Convention III pertains to the treatment of prisoners of war. This includes enemy combatants, I'd imagine. They're fighting. They're the enemy. We are at war, the administration says constantly. When an enemy combatant is captured in war, he becomes a prisoner of war. Basic logic.
Convention III, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article III:
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
At any time and in any place whatsoever. Doesn't matter what "they've" done to us. No justifications. No "but X does so much worse!" No "we're not as bad as they are!" At any time and in any place whatsoever.
Convention IV relates to noncombatants. This would seem to cover everyone we swept up in the vast net post-9/11, such as the taxi drivers, farmers, and street vendors of Afghanistan, and the hotel workers and bystanders of Iraq.
Convention IV, Article 32:
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 punishments, 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 civilian or military agents.
Prohibition of corporal punishments. Know what that means? No beatings. No slaps to the face or stomach. Prohibition of causing physical suffering? No starvation. No sleep deprivation. (And if you think sleep dep doesn't cause physical suffering, stay up for the next 36 hours and then tell me how you feel.) No torture of noncombatants. It is illegal.
The administration says there's plenty of room for interpretation in these words. I say to the administration, you are full of shit. A longstanding principle of law is that, absent definitions, the plain meaning of the words of a statute is to be used. No twisty definitions, no "it depends on what severe means." I don't care if you do give them two kinds of fruit, if you hurt them, it's torture, and you have broken the law and are guilty of war crimes. And, dare I say, the Republicans appear awfully soft on crime these days.