Reconciling Torture and Security ABSTRACT As the United States wages a global war on terror, the...
1
Reconciling Torture and Security ABSTRACT As the United States wages a global war on terror, the issue of torture has confronted the international community. The major players in the debate are George Bush and his policy makers and human rights advocates and organizations such as Amnesty International. Interests of the American administration are the protection of American citizens and consequent persecution of terrorists; the interest of human rights advocates is the preservation for all people of universal human rights. The problem is how we can extract information about threats to national security from those who may know, while still respecting the universal human rights of the detainees. In the interest of protecting Americans and terror suspects, one possible option is to prosecute terror suspects in an international court. Objective criteria for measuring the evenhandedness of the agreement include previous cases of detention or moral standards. INTRODUCTION Torture, understood as an act intended to create physical or psychological suffering in order to extract information from a human being, became illegal only relatively recently. Torture tactics such as flagellation (whipping), denailing (removing fingernails and toenails), and flaying (removal of skin) have long been employed to intimidate, coerce, and punish dissidents and enemies of those in power. In 1948 in the fifth article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations declared that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Before we can identify the interests of the parties involved in the negotiations, we must identify empirical data about the effects of torture. First, two types of torture exist. Physical torture is a process that employs devices or other means (such as the application of direct physical force) to create physical suffering. Psychological torture uses non- physical methods targeted at the psyche of the subject. Alarming are not only the immediate harmful effects of torture, but also the lasting effects. Common long lasting effects of torture are brain damage, dementia, chronic pain syndromes, post- traumatic stress syndrome, anxiety, and depression. Most recently, the Bush administration has requested certain exemptions in anti-torture legislation for the sake of extracting information about terrorist networks. Using the plan developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the the Harvard Negotiation Project and explained in the book “Getting to Yes,” we will strike a balance between human rights advocates demanding a cessation of all “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” and the Bush administration. Alex Marr Beloit College The Art and Science of Negotiation Draft-February 15 QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. HOW PREVELANT IS THE USE OF TORTURE? It is estimated that 1/3 of the world’s countries continue to use torture. This is a list of countries with reported uses of torture since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It should be noted that while some of these countries have not outlawed torture, many of the following countries are signors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Chile, China, France, Germany, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Soviet Union, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan OPTIONS In the interest of protecting freedom and preserving the value of human rights, the best resolution to the current debate regarding torture and security is to hold the United States accountable for any human rights violations while allowing the continuation of anti-terror practice in agreement with the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. The solution will not confront the ideological premise for the global war on terror, it will address the tactics employed in the execution of that war. An objective third party, such as a coalition of states, must inspect and create a report concerning purported human rights violations committed by the United States. If the United States has acted contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Convention, the country must discontinue any illegal practices. The United States must not, however, discontinue all operations on the war on terror. The solution will allow the United States to protect American citizens in a lawful manner, with respect to the rights of every terror suspect. INTERESTS For the Use of Torture Vice-President Dick Cheney urged Senate Republicans in November of 2005 to allow CIA exemptions to Senator John McCain’s legislation making illegal “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment. Cheney claimed the use of such treatment may be necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. According to the White House, the United States does not employ torture tactics. However, in response to the McCain bill, the White House requested an exemption in cases of “clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States.” It is clear that the Bush administration is interested foremost in protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks and eradicating global terror as part of the war on terror. This interest includes the speedy discovery and destruction of anti-American terrorist networks and plans. The People: Torture is Justified The Bush administration is the most visible proponent of torture in this debate INTERESTS Against the Use of Torture Human rights advocates, such as Jimmy Carter, oppose the use of torture based on ethical justifications and factual evidence about the effectiveness of torture. Human rights advocates are interested to see that all human beings live a life free from “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment, as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The interest of human rights advocates is to eliminate the use of treatment that violates an individuals rights as a human being. Member states of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which came into affect in 1987. The Convention Against Torture is one of a series of UN agreements that seek to protect human rights. The People: Against Torture Human Rights Advocates such as Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Organizations like Amnesty International TED and Sidoti, Liz. “Cheney Seeks CIA Exemption to Torture Ban.” The Post 5 November, 2005. ions Convention Against Torture.” 2005. 5 Feb 2006 wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture/ cartercenter .org/ peaceprograms /program13. htm 5 Feb. 2006. ikipedia .org/ wiki /Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times 5 Feb. 2006. OBJECTIVE CRITERIA: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND TREATISES United Nations Convention Against Torture The "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"(UNCAT) came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are articles 1, 2, 3 and the first paragraph of article 16 Article 1 1. 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. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 16 1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Third Geneva Convention deals with prisoners of war in an international armed conflict. Article 17 states that "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 unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.". The Fourth Geneva Convention in Article 32 states that captured enemy civilians in an international armed conflict have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments,
-
Upload
phillip-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
7
Transcript of Reconciling Torture and Security ABSTRACT As the United States wages a global war on terror, the...
Reconciling Torture and Security
ABSTRACTAs the United States wages a global war on terror, the issue of torture has confronted the
international community. The major players in the debate are George Bush and his policy makers and human rights advocates and organizations such as Amnesty
International. Interests of the American administration are the protection of American citizens and consequent persecution of terrorists; the interest of human rights advocates is the preservation for all people of universal human rights. The problem is how we can extract information about threats to national security from those who may know, while still respecting the universal human rights of the detainees. In the interest of protecting Americans and terror suspects, one possible option is to prosecute terror suspects in an
international court. Objective criteria for measuring the evenhandedness of the agreement include previous cases of detention or moral standards.
INTRODUCTIONTorture, understood as an act intended to create physical or psychological
suffering in order to extract information from a human being, became illegal only relatively recently. Torture tactics such as flagellation (whipping),
denailing (removing fingernails and toenails), and flaying (removal of skin) have long been employed to intimidate, coerce, and punish dissidents and
enemies of those in power. In 1948 in the fifth article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations declared that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Before we can identify the interests of the parties involved in the negotiations, we must identify empirical data about the effects of torture. First, two types of torture exist. Physical torture is a process that employs devices or other means (such as the application of direct physical force) to create physical suffering. Psychological torture uses non-physical methods targeted at the psyche of the subject. Alarming are not only the immediate harmful effects of torture, but
also the lasting effects. Common long lasting effects of torture are brain damage, dementia, chronic pain syndromes, post-traumatic stress syndrome,
anxiety, and depression.
Most recently, the Bush administration has requested certain exemptions in anti-torture legislation for the sake of extracting information about terrorist
networks. Using the plan developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the the Harvard Negotiation Project and explained in the book “Getting to Yes,” we will
strike a balance between human rights advocates demanding a cessation of all “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” and the Bush administration.
Alex Marr Beloit College The Art and Science of Negotiation Draft-February 15
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
HOW PREVELANT IS THE USE OF TORTURE?It is estimated that 1/3 of the world’s countries continue to use torture. This is a list of countries with reported uses of torture since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It should be noted that while some of these countries have not outlawed torture, many of the following countries are signors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Chile, China, France, Germany, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Soviet Union, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan
OPTIONSIn the interest of protecting freedom and preserving the value of human rights, the best resolution to the current debate regarding
torture and security is to hold the United States accountable for any human rights violations while allowing the continuation of anti-terror practice in agreement with the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. The solution will not confront the ideological premise for the global war on terror, it will address the tactics
employed in the execution of that war. An objective third party, such as a coalition of states, must inspect and create a report
concerning purported human rights violations committed by the United States. If the United States has acted contrary to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Convention, the country must discontinue any illegal practices. The United
States must not, however, discontinue all operations on the war on terror. The solution will allow the United States to protect
American citizens in a lawful manner, with respect to the rights of every terror suspect.
INTERESTSFor the Use of TortureVice-President Dick Cheney urged Senate Republicans in November of 2005 to allow CIA exemptions to Senator John McCain’s legislation making illegal “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment. Cheney claimed the use of such treatment may be necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. According to the White House, the United States does not employ torture tactics. However, in response to the McCain bill, the White House requested an exemption in cases of “clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States.” It is clear that the Bush administration is interested foremost in protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks and eradicating global terror as part of the war on terror. This interest includes the speedy discovery and destruction of anti-American terrorist networks and plans.
The People: Torture is Justified
The Bush administration is the most visible proponent of torture in this debate
INTERESTSAgainst the Use of TortureHuman rights advocates, such as Jimmy Carter, oppose the use of torture based on ethical justifications and factual evidence about the effectiveness of torture. Human rights advocates are interested to see that all human beings live a life free from “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment, as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The interest of human rights advocates is to eliminate the use of treatment that violates an individuals rights as a human being.
Member states of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which came into affect in 1987. The Convention Against Torture is one of a series of UN agreements that seek to protect human rights.
The People: Against TortureHuman Rights Advocates such as Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Organizations like Amnesty International
WORKS CITEDEspo, David and Sidoti, Liz. “Cheney Seeks CIA Exemption to Torture Ban.” The Washington Post 5 November, 2005.
“United Nations Convention Against Torture.” 2005. 5 Feb 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture/
http://www.cartercenter.org/peaceprograms/program13.htm 5 Feb. 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times 5 Feb. 2006.
OBJECTIVE CRITERIA: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND TREATISESUnited Nations Convention Against TortureThe "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"(UNCAT) came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are articles 1, 2, 3 and the first paragraph of article 16Article 11. 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.2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.Article 21. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.Article 31. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.Article 161. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Third Geneva Convention deals with prisoners of war in an international armed conflict. Article 17 states that "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 unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.".The Fourth Geneva Convention in Article 32 states that captured enemy civilians in an international armed conflict have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents."
