The International Crime of Torture

Submitted by: Sunidhi Mehta

Submitted to: Mrs. Riddell Course Code: CLN 4U1 December 13, 2010 Human beings have certain rights that cannot be taken away. To see that these rights are not being violated, countries have various organizations that exist for this sole principle. In Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is an example of such an organization. There is also an international organization that has an exclusive purpose: to watch over the human rights of the people of all nations. It is the United Nations (UN). One of the many conventions of the UN is the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (UNCAT), which was passed in 1984. It declares: The prohibition on torture is well established under international law. It is also unambiguous and absolute. It is binding on all States in all territories under their jurisdiction or effective controlStates must honour this prohibition and vigorously combat the impunity of perpetrators of torture. Those who conceive of or authorize any form of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and those who commit such acts, should not go unpunished. Nor may any State condone torture by a third party. This means that individuals must never be rendered to another

State if there is any danger that doing so may subject them to torture.(Un.org) Nevertheless, many countries do apply torture as they feel that it is an effective means of investigation and would help to combat terrorism. Does it work? It can be easily perceived that the use of torture is futile. Torture produces erratic information. It is a slippery slope as even its restricted use can only cause an outbreak, with investigators trying to validate its utilization in other cases as well. Torture also opposes the aim of the society and government, which is to take care of their citizens, not exploit their rights. That is why, countries should adhere to the UNCAT and any perpetrators should be penalized for straying. Originally, tortures main purpose is to extract information from the terrorists. It is believed that this information can be used to avert the next terrorist attack and save the lives of thousands of innocents. However, the information produced under torture is unreliable. Neuroscientist Shane OMara of Trinity College in Dublin, conducted a study that revealed the following: Extreme stress harms the brains frontal lobe and is associated with production of false memories. Studies have found that the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, brain regions integral to memory, are affected by hormones activated by stress and sleep deprivation.

These hormones have been shown to have harmful effects on memory. (Worldscience.net) Consequently, torture methods like waterboarding and sleep depravation (most-commonly used methods) put pressure on the brain of the person being tortured and produce hormones, which affect a persons memory. Any information given by them, then will be a product of a confused mind and thus, untrustworthy. Furthermore, the victim of torture will say anything to avoid the pain or discomfort being inflicted on them. The US army recognizes this fact by stating in their interrogation field manual: force can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. (Guardian.co.uk). A retired CIA intelligence analyst puts forward the question: Have we not learned from our own soldiers and airmen who, when tortured, using the very same methods that the CIA employed, by the Chinese, North Koreans, and Vietnamese, confessed to false atrocities? (Tampabay.com) His article discloses that the CIA operatives are asked to admit false information if they feel that they are in danger of being tortured. The terrorists might also be asked by their superiors to do the same. From the above three reasons, it can be concluded that there is no guarantee of torture resulting

Mehta, 4

in

dependable Secondly, it

information. is argued

Therefore, that once

its

use

is in

pointless. allowed exceptional circumstances, the use of torture will

spread, and we will find ourselves on a slippery slope where mistreatment is seen as normal, even expected. Through the past, there have been examples of torture being used in trivial cases. Florian Jessberger divulges one such example in his article: Bad Torture Good Torture? The case was concerned with prosecution of German police officers who ordered and threatened pain to be inflicted on a suspected kidnapper who refused to reveal the whereabouts of the child he had taken. (Journal of International Criminal Justice 3 (2005): 10591073). Kidnapping is not that serious crime. Though the torture was not employed in this case, the intention was there. If the torture is ever legalized, what would stop the police officers from not implementing it. Gradually, torture would be utilized in every criminal case, maybe even theft. Torture is not an interrogation tool. It is just an easy way to do it. Another example can be the Mehinovic v. Vuckovic [2004]. This case is a civil lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) on behalf of four Bosnian Muslims who were tortured by a Bosnian

Serb soldiers at detention facilities across BosniaHerzegovina. (Ccrjustice.org) The victims were held in detention facilities across Bosnia-Herzegovina without any formal charges or judicial proceedings. As the Serb ethnic cleansing campaign was launched, Mr. Vuckovic and others of the Serbian forces subjected each plaintiff to various humiliating and distressing acts. The victims were neither criminals nor a danger to the society, but were still tortured. It was also witnessed by many, in 2003, that the US government lawyers were trying to find a legal justification for actions -- torture or cruel and inhumane acts -- that are clearly illegal under U.S. and international law (Washingtonpost.com). Legalization of torture for exceptional circumstances will only encourage the lawyers to find justification of its use in other cases as well. Torture is like an epidemic that can only spread, unless a cure is found. In this case, the cure is an absolute ban on torture. Lastly, countries should adhere to the UNCAT because torture is wrong. It negates the whole idea that the society and the government exist to ensure that we all are well protected. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted:
Mehta, 5

"...The aim of torture is to dehumanise the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities." (Guardian.co.uk) They believe that torture is an instrument used by the government to silence the voice of the people. It is effective in keeping people quiet even if they feel that the actions of the government are wrong. People fear that if they voice their objections they might be the next victims of torture. It contradicts the fact that we are all free citizens and can express our opinions without fear. Five to six years back, a book Truth and Torture was released by Mark Danner. Mr. Andrew Sullivan wrote an article in New York Times, which reviewed the book. In his article he mentions, Three Marines in Mahmudiya used an electric transformer, forcing a detainee to 'dance' as the electricity coursed through himAl-Qatani was forced to perform dog tricks on a leash, was straddled by a female interrogator, forced to dance with a male interrogator, told that his mother and sister were whores, forced to wear a woman's bra and thong on his head during interrogation, and subjected to an un-muzzled dog to scare him.(Markdanner.com) The various forms of torture inflicted on the people in detention cells are so inhuman and degrading that they
Mehta, 6

make a person question the type of society he lives in. The society is a symbol of esteem and protection not humiliation. Also people should understand that torture can never be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is an instrument of terror. (Un.org) Torture is something that is done by the terrorists. Hence, by practising torture government is falling down to the level of the terrorists. The application of torture reflects a depressing image of the society. It contradicts with the goal or purpose of the government too, which is to protect the dignity of its citizens. In the end, the price of torture is too high for any country to pay. Conversely, there are some who argue that torture is a useful tool, which can be effectively brought into play to extract information from criminals especially in cases of terrorism. New York Republican Rep. Peter King suggested to those against torture, If we have another 2000 people killedgo to the funeral and say, Your son was vaporized because we didnt want to dump some guys head under water for 30 seconds(Politico.com). This is the core of the other sides arguments. Is it not worth it to torture a criminal to save the lives of many innocents? Numerous people would agree that in fact, it is worth it. The society is divided into two sides: the Left and the Right side. The Left side believes that torture is

futile. The Right side, on the other hand, considers that condemning torture is wrong because the people who were tortured were just Terrorists barely human and they deserve no defence, not even the force of law (Salon.com). There is some truth in this statement. Terrorists do worse things than just torture. They murder thousands of innocents in a blink of an eye. Surely, such people are not human and if they are not, then why should the human rights apply to them. They should not be protected by law. They have no soul and for this reason, should be tortured to save the lives of countless innocent people. It all comes down to the question: whose life do you value more a criminal or an innocent person? Martin Robbins of The Guardian looks towards Alan Dershowitz who mentioned in the San Francisco Chronicle back in 2001, Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do (Gaurdian.co.uk). Well, there is no arguing the fact that many would torture the criminal if that would mean that a child can be saved and it might be the right thing too. If the person can be so inhumane to plan such a death for a child, then no one can disagree that he is not worthy of the human

rights protection. To conclude, some people judge torture as an efficient method for gathering information. They feel that we should do whatever we have to do if it means that lives are being saved. On the contrary, even if some situations seem to demand the use of torture for valuable informantion, it still is an attrocious way of doing it. The victim of torture can be a criminal or a terrorist but that does not justify its use. No one can decide the value of life and neither can they choose whose rights to protect and whose to violate. A person is permitted to craft all sorts of wily arguments act about why and a statute is does a not apply against nonetheless, he cannot advocate committing a criminal prospectively torture crime humanity. The UNCAT exists due to a reason and not adhering to it would be foolish. Moreover, confessions obtained while inflicting pain with the prospect of death only lead the individual to simply provide whatever the demanding party seeks. It is simply a matter of survival. As a result, the information received may or may not be the reality. The end product is the immediate production of unreliable information that wastes valuable assets. The effect in the long term would be country's inability to improve human rights internationally. It would also

project a negative image of the country and can harm its global standing. In conclusion, torture though an attractive option is a crime. Nor it is functional neither has any yielding benefits. The outcome of torture is undependable information. Also, it is a slippery slope. Its use can only spread. Once permitted, investigators would deem it as a fair game to use torture in order to collect information or evidence from the criminals. It would be used in cases as inconsequential as theft, since it is an easy way out. Last of all, the application of torture in a society, imitates a discouraging picture. The society and the government are in place to ensure that everyone is sheltered and no ones dignity is wounded. They are laws in place that support this ambition. Torture however, contradicts their purpose. As a consequence, it should be banned from the society. UNCAT: the UNs convention against torture states that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture (Un.org). UN promotes absolute ban on torture and for the abovementioned reasons countries should abide by the ban.