This post was written by my friend and neighbor Arthur H. Westing. Arthur is best known as the scientist who brought the information out of Vietnam that Agent Orange had been used in American bombing and had now seeped into the natural environment where it could be counted on to cause cancers in all living things for generations. He did this during the war, no easy matter. His books on environmental degradation caused in war zones are important information for environmentalist and peace activists around the world. I am honored to have him living nearby - John Calvi, founding convener QUIT!
A CASE AGAINST TORTURE Arthur H. Westing
A number of talking heads and other pundits have recently been voicing strong support for the continued use of torture by our government's interrogators in order to extract useful information from prisoners in our custody. The basis for this renewed overt support of torture has been based largely on our government's somewhat ambiguously stated revelation that Osama bin Laden's whereabouts had been thus extracted. Simply stated, the use of torture by our government on my behalf is utterly repulsive to me. The ends, even if they were unambiguously productive, simply do not justify the means of this degrading action; nor does the fact that some other governments do likewise (indeed, some on our behalf). But as a practical aside, studies suggest that the overall utility of torture is at best marginal.
International humanitarian law is on the one hand a reflection and codification of existing ethical principles, and on the other a normative function of further reinforcing those principles of human decency. The brutal actions carried out by various of the parties to World War II led in due course to their almost universal rejection. Thus, in becoming states parties to 1949 Geneva Convention III most nations of the world (including the United States since 1956) have formally agreed "That prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour....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 any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind".
Similarly, in becoming states parties to 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the United States and most other nations have agreed that "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against civilian detainees, in particular to obtain information from them or third parties....Civilian detainees who are confined pending proceedings or serving a sentence involving loss of liberty, shall during their confinement be humanely treated....Imprisonment in premises without daylight, and, in general, all forms of cruelty without exception are forbidden".
The norms of appropriate human behavior just outlined have been reinforced by two additional widely adopted treaties, both of which are, in fact, applicable during both wartime and peacetime. Thus, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (with the United States a state party since 1992) requires that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Even more explicit, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (with the United States a state party since 1994) really lays it on the line: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of
A CASE AGAINST TORTURE Arthur H. Westing
A number of talking heads and other pundits have recently been voicing strong support for the continued use of torture by our government's interrogators in order to extract useful information from prisoners in our custody. The basis for this renewed overt support of torture has been based largely on our government's somewhat ambiguously stated revelation that Osama bin Laden's whereabouts had been thus extracted. Simply stated, the use of torture by our government on my behalf is utterly repulsive to me. The ends, even if they were unambiguously productive, simply do not justify the means of this degrading action; nor does the fact that some other governments do likewise (indeed, some on our behalf). But as a practical aside, studies suggest that the overall utility of torture is at best marginal.
International humanitarian law is on the one hand a reflection and codification of existing ethical principles, and on the other a normative function of further reinforcing those principles of human decency. The brutal actions carried out by various of the parties to World War II led in due course to their almost universal rejection. Thus, in becoming states parties to 1949 Geneva Convention III most nations of the world (including the United States since 1956) have formally agreed "That prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour....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 any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind".
Similarly, in becoming states parties to 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the United States and most other nations have agreed that "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against civilian detainees, in particular to obtain information from them or third parties....Civilian detainees who are confined pending proceedings or serving a sentence involving loss of liberty, shall during their confinement be humanely treated....Imprisonment in premises without daylight, and, in general, all forms of cruelty without exception are forbidden".
The norms of appropriate human behavior just outlined have been reinforced by two additional widely adopted treaties, both of which are, in fact, applicable during both wartime and peacetime. Thus, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (with the United States a state party since 1992) requires that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Even more explicit, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (with the United States a state party since 1994) really lays it on the line: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of
war or a threat of war, internal instability or any other public emergency, may be
invoked as a justification of torture....Each State Party shall ensure that education and
information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training
of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials
and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of
any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment".
I might add that both of the two above-quoted 1949 Geneva Conventions define as a grave breach, i.e., as a war crime, to deprive a prisoner of a fair trial, or to wilfully kill, torture, or otherwise cause the prisoner inhuman treatment or great suffering. In light of the humanity that we must all embrace for ethical if not legal reasons, as spelled out in substantial part in the four described treaties (and thereby constitutionally even a component of the supreme law of our land), I consider it thoroughly reprehensible that our or any other government, or indeed any individual, could promote or even accept the use of torture. ------------------------------------------------------
The author is a consultant in international environmental security based in Putney.
------------------------------------------------------
448
Appeared in: Brattleboro [VT] Reformer 99(75):4. 28-29 May 2011.
I might add that both of the two above-quoted 1949 Geneva Conventions define as a grave breach, i.e., as a war crime, to deprive a prisoner of a fair trial, or to wilfully kill, torture, or otherwise cause the prisoner inhuman treatment or great suffering. In light of the humanity that we must all embrace for ethical if not legal reasons, as spelled out in substantial part in the four described treaties (and thereby constitutionally even a component of the supreme law of our land), I consider it thoroughly reprehensible that our or any other government, or indeed any individual, could promote or even accept the use of torture. ------------------------------------------------------
The author is a consultant in international environmental security based in Putney.
------------------------------------------------------
448
Appeared in: Brattleboro [VT] Reformer 99(75):4. 28-29 May 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.