No Exceptional Circumstances Whatsoever... May Be Invoked as a Justification of Torture

[bigtree]

UN (Geneva) CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (to which the U.S. is a signatory)

Article 2-

1) 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.


2) An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.



from the 2013 Issue Brief for the Human Rights Council (HRC)
Responding to Accusations of Torture by the United States at Guantanamo Bay:

There are no documented examples of a terrorist attack revealed or thwarted by information recovered through torture. Successful interrogations were reportedly achieved at Guantanamo, but these relied on conventional interrogation practices stressing interrogator empathy and relationship.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. But..but..what if your neighbor's parakeet had a nuclear bomb hidden in his cage and...

only your neighbors kid knew the formula for disarming it and/or knew how to get the parakeet to talk. Or, is that the neighbor's goldfish?

[TDale313]

2. Seems pretty damn clear. n/t

[bigtree]

3. shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little

. . . that it's even a question here on this forum.

It proves that we need to be eternally vigilant against misinformation and revisionist arguments.

[zeemike]

11. Some of those who support it have watched too much TV.

And probably have watched all the episodes of 24 and know all the evil things that can be prevented with other evil things.
It is not the same rules as math...and evil +an evil =a good.

[Enthusiast]

14. That's why 24 was created to begin with.

I have no doubt.

[RufusTFirefly]

19. Yes.

It's really rather chilling to watch the TV programs and movies that are routinely rolled out as part of widespread propaganda efforts.

The same goes for feel-good ads for fossil fuel polluters or rapacious financial institutions.

[Enthusiast]

20. We are immersed in it.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[RufusTFirefly]

25. Agreed. But for the most part, I am not.

I don't have a TV, hate National rePublican Radio, and get most of my news from Pacifica, Common Dreams, and DU.

For the most part, I read and watch the things that pique my curiosity, the books and movies I choose, not the ones that Oprah recommends or that all the corporate newspapers, magazines, and web sites are talking about. That's how it's so strikingly obvious to me when I encounter propaganda.

I like what Oliver Stone says in his introduction to The Untold History of the United States

We live much of our lives in a fog. All of us. But I would like my children to have access to something that looks beyond what I would call 'the tyranny of now.'

[bvar22]

40. I still have some trust in the Christian Science Monitor,

Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman (FSTV), Thom Hartmann (RT),
but not too many others.

[Lars39]

22. Yes! The 4400 was showcasing waterboarding too.

These shows were trying to normalize barbarity, IMO.

[Enthusiast]

24. As a society we cannot morph

into the Nazis until we normalize barbarity.

The effort is clear and all around us. Violent police behavior is unchecked.

Fox "News" and the Republican Party are engaged in an incessant effort to pillory the poor and less fortunate. They do everything but call them "useless eaters".

Ultra nationalism is on display before every NFL football game.

FAR RIGHT propagandists dominate radio and their words could never be confused as kind and gentle.

The TV media narrative is tightly controlled right wing misinformation.

[merrily]

56. Interesting. Same has been said of Zero Dark Thirty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Dark_Thirty

Just another crazy conspiracy theory.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/oscars-2013-michelle-obama-presents-best-picture-award-video--85621.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_%282012_film%29

[tclambert]

46. It always amazed me that no one Jack Bauer tortured ever lied to him.

Just one time I wanted one of those professional terrorists to have a plausible back-up story they could feed Jack and send him in the wrong direction. Then Jack has to deal with the political fallout and psychic pain of killing the innocent nephew of an innocent Senator. "But I thought he had the detonator to one of the nukes!" (Cue the gigantic explosion off in the background.) "Darn it! Reek must have lied to me while I was flaying his fingers."

[Enthusiast]

13. You said it!

"It proves that we need to be eternally vigilant against misinformation and revisionist arguments."

Quote worthy. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[truebluegreen]

4. + a zillion

No excuses.

[PoliticAverse]

5. What if you are working hard and under enormous pressure, can that be invoked as justification? n/t

[Dragonfli]

6. Yes, but only if you are a patriot /nt

[kas125]

12. Only if you're a "real patriot."

[Stryder]

30. Well then,

you obviously can't be anywhere to left of Rushbo. Real Murkin Patriots.

[democrank]

7. K & R

No excuses

[annabanana]

8. Thank you bigtree

It is appalling to see anything else considered.

[malaise]

9. Including fear

That's why Germans are still being charged. That's why Pinochet was charged (as late as it was) and Bush, CHeney, Blair, Powell, Rice et al must pay. Add Bibi to that list.

[bigtree]

10. yes

. . . regardless of whoever was afraid "after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen," or worried about "whether more attacks were imminent."

[Enthusiast]

15. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Unless, you know, someone wants to excuse torture.

[rhett o rick]

33. Oh Plez! No one here wants to excuse torture.

Some may be willing to dump their Democratic principles and support a president that rationalizes and minimizes torture, but only of just "folks". I think there were six.

[LiberalArkie]

16. Remember Bush's guys never tortured anyone. They told us so.

They only used "enhanced interrogation techniques" Bush's lawyers said it was all legal and did not come close to torture.

[rhett o rick]

35. Good point, the Geneva Convention doesn't say "enhanced interrogation" is illegal.

I want Bybee and Gonzales to be the first prosecuted. Actually, I want the working level torturers to be the first to be prosecuted. I want to hear them cry that they were only following orders. I want to hear them say it. Then work our way up the ladder, with each group crying about "following orders", until we get to Bushy The Dim-Son that will say, "Mommy told me to". And then last Richard "The Dick" Cheney. Nothing extraordinary for his punishment, just solitary confinement in the Jose Padilla cell. I try to follow Mahatma Gandhi, but I slip sometimes.

[L0oniX]

38. Please include John Yoo in that list.

[rhett o rick]

39. Absolutely. nm

[leftstreet]

17. DURec

[Solly Mack]

18. K&R

[Lars39]

21. *Every one* needs to go back and study the Torture Memos and how Bushco made torture legal.

They deliberately led us into this mess.

[johnnyreb]

23. Thank you so much bigtree for hammering this issue.

Just hearing about torture in our name, and seeing the blank stares and silence of people I knew, nearly drove me over the edge back when. Then I found DU.

"The company of just and righteous men is better than wealth and a rich estate." --Euripides

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Ditto. Bigtree and I don't see eye to eye on many things, but on this we're in complete agreement.

[ReRe]

26. K&R

Nada. Zip. No justification. No ifs, ands or buts.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Kicked & Recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bigtree.

[blkmusclmachine]

29. Don't tell "Mr. Constitutional Scholar"

[Bandit]

31. A fucking men

[noiretextatique]

32. american exceptionalism

legalized torture. anyone who supports EIT aka torture is a psychopath.

[slipslidingaway]

34. knr n/t

[Scuba]

36. Well, except for scared patriots.

[stillwaiting]

37. How very, very quaint!!

[bvar22]

41. DURec.

....bit NOW torture is OK if you are scared.
We have evolved.

[bobduca]

50. Scared and a Patriot

Only while looking forward , away from the criminal acts of scared patriots can the country mend, not through sanctimony!

[DeSwiss]

42. K&R!

[center][/center]

[cheapdate]

43. The United States signed, but has never ratified the Convention. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

48. More bullshit to support your rationalization of torture.

John Brennan, is that you?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977.

...

Here's what the US ratified:


Convention I: This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.

Convention II: This agreement extended the protections mentioned in the first Convention to shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, including special protections afforded to hospital ships.

Convention III: One of the treaties created during the 1949 Convention, this defined what a Prisoner of War was, and accorded them proper and humane treatment as specified by the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs.

Convention IV: Under this Convention, civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers. Furthermore, additional regulations regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced. Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc. It also specifies the right of internees, and those who commit acts of sabotage. Finally, it discusses how occupiers are to treat an occupied populace.

...

Bushco tried to get around Convention 3 by labeling detainees as "enemy combatants" rather than POW's. John Yoo, however, cited Lewis Libby to declare that the attacks on 9/11 were, for all intents and purposes, a "war."

MEMORANDUM FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

WILLIAM J. HAYNES, II
GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FROM:

John c. Yoo
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Robert J. Delahunty
Special Counsel

RE: Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States

It is vital to grasp that attacks on this scale and with these consequences are "more akin to war than terrorism."1

Lewis Libby, Legal Authority for a Domestic Military Role in Homeland Defense, in Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, &. George D. Wilson (eds.), The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons 305, 305 (1999).

[cheapdate]

49. Swing and a miss!

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature by General Assembly resolution on December 10, 1984, is featured in the OP with extended quotations.

The OP features a link to the full text of the document. The "Signatures" link at the bottom of that page lists the Unites States under "States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture".

So, I'm not sure what it is you're on about. If you have different information regarding the above, please feel free to share it.

Your claim that anywhere have I provided a "rationalization for torture" is a fiction born of rashness and carelessness. Elsewhere, I proposed a rationalization for the White House's inaction in pursuing prosecutions for torture and other crimes. They are two different things. One is not the other. The Sheriff of Sevier County in Tennessee was asked why he didn't aggressively pursue cock-fighting and gambling operations in his county, He answered that he'd like to, but his resources were finite and prostitution and meth labs were larger problems. He wasn't providing a "rationalization for cock-fighting and gambling" and it's wrong to claim he was.

It's essential in critical thinking and open dialogue to consider opposing arguments calmly and with civility and not lose your shit when confronted with a different point of view. Furthermore, arguments are sometimes proposed with a view toward fully considering the question from all perspectives and arriving at the best language for talking about it and the strongest arguments for or against it (see earlier -- "critical thinking" and "not lose your shit".)

The Yoo memo was a disgrace. Previously, I've readily conceded that torture happened, it was reprehensible, and it is illegal under US and international law.

[merrily]

55. The US ratified the UN Convention in 1994.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en

I don't know which rationalization for the White House's failure to prosecute Bushco for torture, but maybe it's that we continue extraordinary rendition and other torture practices, only now, we make the receiving nation tell us they will not torture the people we've flown there to be tortured. Please see Reply 51.

Please see also http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/guant-namo-his-second-term-obama-must-correct-human-rights-failure-2013-01-08

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/7-recommendations-to-president-obama-on-guantanamo-torture-drones/

And many other amnesty international articles about Obama and torture.

[merrily]

54. Please also see Replies 53, 51 and 55.

[merrily]

53. We signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

Which is more shameful, refusing to ratify a treaty against torture or ratifying one while we were violating it?

[cheapdate]

58. In my defense,

my post ("The United States...never ratified the Convention&quot was nothing more than a point of fact. The information came directly from the linked document in the OP.

I have readily conceded many times that I believe that torture is a crime under US statute and treaty law. The infamous Yoo memo is disgraceful and I reject its tortured attempt to finesse a justification for torture by redefining the language and words used to talk about it.

(Note : in hindsight, Ive tried to confirm whether or not The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature by General Assembly resolution on December 10, 1984, was ever actually ratified by the United States. As I said, the linked document in the OP says it wasn't. A Wikipedia article says it was ratified in 1994. I tried unsuccessfully to find a definitive record of a Senate ratification vote from 1994.)

[merrily]

60. It was not a point of fact. Facts are true.

I am not sure where you looked, but google turned up both wiki and the link I posted in a maybe under two seconds; and both mention ratification by the US in 1994.

However, you don't have no need to defend yourself to me. We all err from time to time.

[cheapdate]

61. Here's where I looked : I looked at the source link provided in the OP.

The OP from Bigtree links to a document that gives the full text of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature by General Assembly resolution on December 10, 1984.

At the bottom of that document is a link labeled "SIGNATURES". That link opens a document that lists the United States under "States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture".

So, I looked at the source link in the OP.

After another poster called my information "Bullshit", I searched and found the same Wikipedia information that you did, which indicated that the United States ratified in 1994. I searched briefly for a record of the Senate ratification vote but didn't find one.

That's the whole story.

[merrily]

62. Okay, but I am not attacking you or requiring you to defend yourself.

I was just pointing out that google would have given you the facts very quickly. I don't always google everything that I intend to post, though. Sometimes, I rely on memory and I get it wrong. As I said, we all err from time to time.

[cheapdate]

63. I understand that you were'nt attacking me.

My source was the link provided in the OP. Your google habits sound very close to mine. I google to see different perspectives. I google to confirm claims. In this case, I didn't google to cross-check the plain and direct claim made in Bigtree's source that the United States hadn't ratified the Convention.

As it turns out, the United States senate ratified the Convention on October 21, 1994, "...subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including a declaration that CAT Articles 1 through 16 were not self-executing, and therefore required domestic implementing legislation."

Bigtrees's source link was not up to date and my information was not correct.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32276.pdf

[merrily]

64. Dude, let it go already.

[cheapdate]

65. I might.

[99th_Monkey]

44. Proud to be the 100th rec. ~nt

[Calista241]

45. What if they have a dog that barks ALL night

Right outside your window? Can we torture people then.

Or what if, even worse, they're giant Justin Bieber fans, and they spew his crap all day and night.

[woo me with science]

47. K&R

Thank you.

[merrily]

51. To be fair, we did

resist becoming party to the UN Convention Against Torture. That did not happen until 1994, while we were engaging in "extraordinary rendition," aka offshoring torture.

During the United States war on terror, President Clinton initiated the program and, under the administration of President George W. Bush, the term became associated with US practices of abducting and transferring terrorism suspects to countries known to employ torture for the purpose of interrogation. The process has continued and expanded under the Barack Obama administration, though new rules have been put in place that claim to prevent torture of abducted individuals; in August 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder accepted the results of the Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies that the U.S. will be limited to seek "assurances from the receiving country" as such.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

And

The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture


The full name of the Convention Against Torture is "The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Think about devout Muslim males in Abu Ghraib, forced to be naked before both males and females. And of Chelsea Manning, involuntary nudity usually being especially painful for a transgender person.

Then again, if we're going to torture despite (finally) becoming parties to the convention, maybe it was not good to become parties. Maybe it was only hypocrisy.

[neverforget]

52. Thank you bigtree for being on top of this issue!

I really appreciate your hard work!

[PowerToThePeople]

57. "We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. What if it's just "folks"? Torturers, torturees... Can't we just let bygones be bygones?

Great op.