When is torture legal?

Dr. Bhogendra Sharma, president of the Centre for Victims of Torture, stands outside the group’s office in Katmandu, Nepal, in 2006. Groups like this one believe that freedom from torture is a human right.

Brian Sokol/AFP/Getty Images

By Josh Clark

Seated across from you in a darkened room is a man tied to a chair. The hum of dim fluorescent lights rings in your ears. The thick concrete walls that surround you won’t let in any sound — or let any out. Outside, two guards look the other way. You know that this man has information on a plot to kill innocent civilians. You’ve asked him repeatedly to tell you what he knows. How many lives could be saved if he gives you the information? Hundreds? Thousands?

So do you resort to torture to get this man to talk? Do you use one of the more prevalent forms of torture? Do you use the more subtle, psychologically damagingwhite torture? Do you hang him by his arms or threaten his family? If you’re obeying international law, then you choose none of these options.

But why? Because torture is illegal. Any kind of treatment that causes physical or mental pain, committed for any reason, is a violation of international law.

In 1984, the United Nations held a convention on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID). What resulted was an international treaty signed by 74 countries, including the United States

[source 1=”Nations” language=”:United”][/source]

. The Convention against Torture expressly forbids committing acts of torture and outsourcing torture to other countries where torturous methods are legal. It also established procedures for prosecuting anyone caught torturing another person

[source 1=”United” 2=”Nations” language=”:”][/source]

.

While the treaty forbids torture and regulates its practitioners, it doesn’t diminish the need to extract information. And there are few ways as useful as torture for undertaking such an effort. So is there such a thing as legal torture? That depends on how you view it.

Chilean president Gen. Augusto Pinochet, shown in state in Santiago in 2006, was tried in a British international court for genocide and torture in 2000. He was acquitted.

Claudio Pozo/AFP/Getty Images

The Legality of Torture

The Convention against Torture isn’t the only document that forbids nations and individuals from practicing torture. In 1949, the Geneva Convention also outlawed acts of torture toward prisoners of war

[source 1=”United” 2=”Nations” language=”:”][/source]

. The United States specifically outlaws any U.S. citizen from practicing torture in Title 18 of the U.S. legal code. Anyone who kills another person through torture can face the penalty of death

[source 1=”Cornell” 2=”University” language=”:”][/source]

. The Army Field Manual allows some methods of interrogation — like attacking a detainee’s pride — but outlaws mental and physical torture and inhumane treatment, such as threats and beatings

[source 1=”PBS” language=”:”][/source]

. But what’s at stake when these guidelines aren’t followed?

Any political body engaged in interrogation that might be considered torture has a fine line to walk. On one hand, there’s the question of extracting information needed to save lives. But on the other hand is the basic human right that the U.N. Convention against Torturegrants to all people. If a military subordinate is considered to have crossed the line into torture, his or her leader could be prosecuted for war crimes. There’s no statute of limitations on deaths resulting from torture

[source 1=”Chicago” 2=”Sun-Times” language=”:”][/source]

. And military tribunals like that in The Hague, Netherlands, have an established “doctrine of command responsibility.” Essentially, this holds high-ranking officials responsible forwar crimes — including torture — that happen on their watch

[source 1=”New” 2=”York” 3=”Times” language=”:”][/source]

. There’s also the consideration that a government that uses torture in effect condones torture to be used on its own people in the event that they’re captured by an enemy.

But do the torture laws that protect enemy combatants captured under the normal rules of war extend to terrorists? Immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the federal government began debating the standard rules of the Geneva Convention. In an interview in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the U.S. would use any means at its disposal in the war on terror

[source 1=”The” 2=”White” 3=”House” language=”:”][/source]

. And ultimately, the Bush administration concluded that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to enemies in the War on Terror.

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to terror suspects — limiting the interrogation methods available to the United States

[source 1=”New” 2=”York” 3=”Times” language=”:”][/source]

.

To consider how to get around these limitations, a group of American attorneys created a 100-page document, referred to as the “Rumsfeld memo” by the Washington Post, which questioned the broad view of torture under international law

[source 1=”Washington” 2=”Post” language=”:”][/source]

. This document also suggests some defenses a torturer may take if prosecuted for torture. The group concluded that the executive authority granted to the president of the United States and his role as commander in chief of the armed forces grants him wide powers that supersede international and domestic laws concerning torture.

Essentially, the document proposes that the president can order suspects be interrogated using methods currently considered torture in international law. Furthermore, anyone following orders to use those methods would be immune from legal proceedings. The group also laid out defenses in case charges were ever brought against anyone following these orders. Among them was a “good faith” defense, which says that the torturer was told beforehand that the act did not constitute torture

[source 1=”Wall” 2=”Street” 3=”Journal” language=”:”][/source]

.

This has yet to be vetted by any court, international or otherwise.

This entry was posted in Law, Legal, Legal Material, News and tagged , , , , , , , , , on by .

About Customer Service

At Undisputed legal Inc., we are consistently striving for excellence by upgrading the process in which we do business. It is our goal to provide each and every client with personal attention, professional service, and exceptional quality. We understand the plight of our clients, whether they need process services, eviction services, court services, subpoena services, skip trace services, or world compliance investigations, which is why we employ the most professional and experienced New York paralegals, process servers, subpoena servers, and skip tracers/investigators in order to ensure each case is completed accurately and efficiently. With an extreme investment to expand and improve our complete operation, we have invested in state-of-the-art technology and offsite storage in order to comply with recent city/federal licensing regulations that require companies to safeguard and secure confidential information. TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY Here at Undisputed Legal Inc., we believe in empowering all of our clients with a clear understanding of the civil rules and laws related to our services. Process Service: While complex, our staff will take the time to review the rules, laws, timelines and options as they pertain to your service of process. We guarantee diligent attempts however we don't guarantee personal service. Our process servers will make all efforts to successfully serve while adhering to requirements imposed by the jurisdictions in which they operate, providing a detailed record of what transpired on each and every attempt. Court Service: All assignments are handled proficiently and in a timely manner with a proven track record by our paralegals. in the event your documents are rejected by the court, our court paralegals will provide you with a detailed summary of what transpired and how to best move forward. Skip Trace/Background Check: Our skip tracers are able to locate successfully 90% of the time however, there are special circumstances which will effect the results of a skip trace such as, subject being incarcerated, subject has no utilities in his/her name, subject has no social security number, or has relocated overseas. We understand the process can be overwhelming and frustrating which is why transparency is so important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *