Torture is defined as follows in the UN Convention on Torture:
"… 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." Signed by the United States, 1988; ratified by the United States, 1994.
The various techniques of "interrogation" cited by Suskind are torture by any imaginable reading of the UN convention. To argue otherwise is simply ridiculous. Dialog or debate on whether this or that act of "intentionally inflicted" "pain or suffering" is torture represents an affront to the notion of intellectual honesty.
Torture is outlawed by the various Geneva Conventions, all signed by the United States. The conventions cover everyone imprisoned in times of conflict, not just military combatants: "There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." International Committee of the Red Cross
Individuals who order violations of international law, torture for example, are said to have "command responsibility." A 1998 decision by the international court in The Hague ruled that civilians found responsible for committing or facilitating torture can be charged and convicted under international law. (Celebici Case, 1998)
A Bureaucracy Mired in the Details of Torture
We found out last week that the vice president and senior Bush appointees "discussed and approved" the highly abusive interrogation techniques applied to U.S. detainees, according to reports by ABC News and the Associated Press. Those techniques include waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and physical assault.
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News. ABC News, Apr. 10, 2008
The list of officials includes Vice President Cheney, along with Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft -- who were cabinet members at the time -- and Condoleezza Rice." They "discussed and approved" torture scripts that were followed to the letter:
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic. ABC News, Apr. 10, 2008
The choreography of torture was revealed by the Boston Globe (Apr. 15, 2006). The story exposed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's personal involvement in monitoring the interrogation and torture of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The Globe may have uncovered the tip of comprehensive story offered by ABC.
Over a six-week period, according to subsequent investigations, the detainee was subjected to sleep deprivation, stripped naked, forced to wear women's underwear on his head, denied bathroom access until he urinated on himself, threatened with snarling dogs, and forced to perform tricks on a dog leash, among other things. Boston Globe, Apr. 15, 2006 (describing activities "monitored" weekly by Donald Rumsfeld)
(Clockwise) Rumsfeld (center) with Brig. General Janis Karpinski (left) in Iraq prisoin; the reported Rumsfeld torture choreography from the Boston Globe illustrated in photographs taken in Iraq prisons.
All of this was justified by an executive memorandum signed by President George W. Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, in which the president said, "I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and I determined that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world. … " The "legal conclusion" from Justice was produced to meet the needs of the task at hand, avoiding the legal restrictions on torture. There were lesser memos to follow the president's declaration of independence, of sorts, but none could match the brutality inducing elegance of the February 2002 document. All manner of intentionally inflicting physical pain and emotional distress relied on jettisoning the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
