Torture - What is the Correct Definition?

Let me open by saying that I totally agree with the premise that under normal circumstances nobody should be inflicted with torturous techniques. Period the end. I don't think that anyone, left or right, would disagree that the deliberate use of torture for no apparent purpose is absolutely wrong and should not be tolerated.

That argument however, does not carry a great deal of sway when we are talking about the safety of Americans and our allies around the world, during what can only be termed as a time of immense global insecurity. Not a war by definition, but very unsafe times. An argument exists that by torturing to get imperative information that will hopefully be used to save lives, we may be no better than the enemy that we are trying to combat. To that point I have two questions:

What constitutes torture?  
Is there some threshold by which those that oppose any degree of torture would accept it, were it to prevent an action brought by our enemies that would be so abhorrent and devastational as to justify it?

Is it perhaps possible that in the hatred of, and the rush to condemn the current administration no matter what (an administration that has no doubt committed significant blunders), the bigger picture has been lost? That is that we are fighting people that want us dead, and who do not play by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Far from it.

What Does The Geneva Convention say?

Should we go by the Geneva Convention when we determine what is an acceptable level of torture? Just what are some of the things that the Geneva Convention stipulates?

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

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;

(c) 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.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

(From the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights)

By Whose Definition Is Torture Determined?

I am not sure if the groups that seek to do us harm are abiding by all or any of these terms. One needs only to look at the attacks on 9/11 to see that is the case. In a manual discovered at an Al Qaeda safe house there was a description of the methods to use when interrogating and torturing a captive. Some of these included the use of:

Electric drills, hammers, blow torches, meat cleavers, pliers and wire cutters, chains, screw drivers, whips and handcuffs. Some of the drawings included the methods to be used for perpetrating some incredibly gruesome acts, including "how to drill hands, sever limbs, drag victims behind cars, remove eyes, put a blowtorch or iron to someone's skin, suspend a person from a ceiling and electrocute them, break limbs and restrict breath and put someone's head in a vice." (Fox News, May 2007)

Now let's compare these acts with some of those reported to be used by the U.S. in a Washington Post story on June 10, 2004. This story outlines and derides some of the "techniques" being used by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay to "torture" the detainees or prisoners.

If we compare the methods in the terms of the Geneva Convention, or any other convention for that matter, we have to wonder why the outcry is over the actions of the U.S. to a much greater degree than that of our enemy. These are some of the ones mentioned:

"Some of the more severe methods available to interrogators in Iraq, if they got proper approval, include forcing detainees to sit or stand in stressful positions, using sleep or sensory deprivation, and using military dogs to intimidate. Others requiring prior approval included isolating a detainee from peers; pride and ego up or down, which means attacking someones personal worth and sense of pride; and "fear up/harsh," in which interrogators could yell at prisoners, throw things around the interrogation room and convince a detainee that he has something to fear, change of scenery up; change of scenery down; dietary manipulation; environmental manipulation; sleep adjustment (reversal) ; isolation for 30 days"; and a technique known as "false flag," or deceiving a detainee into believing he is being interrogated by someone from another country."

Does the end justify the means? It depends which case you are looking at.

Michael Haltman, President
Exeter Commercial LLC
Jericho, New York
The Political and Financial Markets Commentator
http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
http://www.thecommercialcapitalmortgageseminar.com

Join me on:

Twitter: halthouse1
LinkedIn: politicsandfinance
Bebo: michaelh8480
Gather: halthouse1
Facebook: id=1006567915&ref=profile

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.