Advertisement
5 comments:
-
You have made a good point, and I find it hard to believe that one can determine what is not "Torture" if they have not had to experience it. Just a thought, Police at the Town I retired from (Several of them that I Know) vounteered to be tazered, now they know what it is like--instead of speculation!
-
Thanks for your response.
Somewhat off topic, but I've got mixed feelings about the tazers. One one hand, it is an effective means to restrain someone, when otherwise gunfire may be the only other alternative.
On the other hand, tazering can be misused by an unscrupulous officer, and there is less oversite than gunfire and little chance of provable marks, like a billy club. A nearby county has had two situations of fatal tazer use while inside the county jail (yes inside). One of the victims was restrained, and additionally held down by several officers while the tazers were used. His crime was running down the street yelling while off his bipolar medication, and his wife called the police and informed then that he had not taken his medication, and was behaving erratically.
Used properly, a tazer is a relatively benign tool for law enforcement when more damaging means may otherwise need to be used. Used improperly, it is a means to punish an uncooperative civilian that will seldom require an explanation.
-
Torture, from the Second Geneva Conventions, Article 17:
"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."
The UN adopted similar restrictive wording in 1985, and the US Signed on in 1988:
"1. 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."
From US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C, as of 01/19/04
Section 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
I agree that the US code provides some "wiggle room" - in that it defines torture as "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." I'd suggest that the Geneva Conventions, and UN Convention do not, and we signed on to both of them.
-
Given the description provided in the Geneva, article 17--one can surely without question label "Waterboarding" along with numerous others as a form of torture. However--you are correct about the US code leaving "wiggle room", leaving it up to individual definitions regarding severe.
I am concerned that the "pundits", "experts", and politicians who have continually said that "we don't torture" are given any credibility whatsoever. Yet, they now speak of necessity, effectiveness, and justification, and, unlike many, I don't believe those lies any more than I belive that "we don't torture".
The only good news is that "we don't torture" may now be true.