As most now know, memos written by then Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee have become know as “The Torture Memos” because they justify the use of torture harsh interrogation techniques on GWOT detainees. Here is the conclusion from on of the first memos, written.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture.
Here is the U. N. definition of torture, as stated in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which almost every nation in the world, including the U. S. has signed on to:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Notice that there is no mention of the length of mental (or physical, for that matter) suffering that the detainee has to endure in order for an act to be described as torture. So where does this “refined” definition of torture come from? I have been unable to confirm, but one commentator on NPR has said that the U.S. wanted a length of mental suffering clause added during the ratification process (it’s in the audio link). Even if that’s true, fact is, they didn’t get it. So Bush’s legal team changed the definition of torture to fit their needs.
But lets put that aside for the moment.
The rational Bush lawyers used to redefine waterboarding, and other torture techniques, as not being torture, especially when looked at through the lens of mental health, is based on the finding derived from a military training program called SERE, an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. The program was devised as a way to train military personnel to withstand torture and interrogation by subjecting them to torture techniques they might experience if held captive by torturous regimes such as the U.S. North Korea. The torture method were in fact modeled after those used by the North Koreans on U.S. soldiers during the Korean War. Several studies do show that there are few instances of mental stress disorders associated with soldiers who have competed this training, who were tortured. Problem with this argument is, these soldiers not only volunteer to go through these procedures, they knew what to expect, but also there are safeguards in place, such as safety words or hand signals the soldier can use to stop the torture if it becomes too difficult. I suspect Gitmo detainees and other enemy combatants had no such luxury. They thought they were going to die. For real.
Let’s contrast this to a real life situation, and show how absurd it is to claim that undergoing torture of the kind the U.S perpetrated under G.W. Bush would have no long term effects. Let’s say you are taken hostage by a gunman. He has you sit on your couch for three hours, then lets you go. This might damage your psyche in of itself. But lets say it doesn’t. OK, let’s say the gunman, instead of having you sit on the couch, blind folds you, tapes your mouth shut, slaps you around (all approved techniques), puts you in the trunk of your car (isolation – approved), drivers around for hours (disorientation – approved) , drives through a river deep enough that water is leaking into your trunk and you’re afraid you’rer going to drown (waterboarding – approved), then parks and abandons the car during the cold night and your not found for a day where the temerature in the trunk gets up to 105 degrees (temperature extremes – approved – though illegal if it happens to dogs or cats). Now it doesn’t matter that the gunman actually has no intention of killing you (even if he tells you so, would you believe him?). That’s not the point. Will you argue there will be no serious long term psychological issues to deal with after this. Will you?
To those who are supposed “Reaganites” (Levin, Hannity, Rush, Savage) Ronald Reagan was the President who approved of the U.S. signing on to the U.N. definition of torture, which DOES NOT include a length of suffering clause in the definition. And, it also says this:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture” and “an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture” (Art. 2 (2-3))
Reagan approved of and signed on to the ratification of this document. So will you now argue he was wrong? You are not only NOT following his lead, but are in stark opposition to his ideals, as usual.
And, if you don’t know what a safety word is, here’s a primer.
Uncategorized | Sonicfrog April 23, 2009 | 
Comments (0) 
