There's an international standard for this, you know.
Torture is a crime agains Humanity in the world court. They define it in
this compilation of documents thusly:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Well that's pretty clear. No sewing twins together or grafting extra genitals onto peoples faces or seeing how smallpox responds to aftershave or whatnot.
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.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
There's a couple of intresting points here. The
wether physical or menat part is pretty important in answering your question. Clearly the World Court would say hooking someone up to a fake electric chair or whatever would qualify as torture. Also the
or intimidating or coercing him or a third person is important. I can't show you a picture of dead cousin Abdul, to coerce you to cooperate. The catch clause at then end is there expressly to point out that this document doen not limit other documents which may have a wider definition of torture. Note there is no such provision for a documents having a more limited definition. In law we would call this clause "controlling." Hence the quotes from the documents to follow are "controlled" by The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984. (here and after "84")
Anyway, there's more.
In a couple of ducments controlled by "84" there are some specefic enumerations of what qualifies as torture. Remeber they are controlled by "84" and thus can only widen it's definition but not narrow it.
1.The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2.Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator.
3.Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
4.The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5.The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
(…)
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(…)
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(…)
Some specefics in there, but again, bear in mind they are controlled by the scope of "84" and do not exempt any part of that document due to their speceficity. This document is enumerating the qualifications for the Crime Against Humanity of torture.
Article 8 enumerates the conditions for the War Crimes of Torture and Inhumane Treatement.
These articles are the presice reason the Geneva Convention issue exists at all. For Torture to qualify as a war crime, the GC comes into play. For it to qualify under "84" it merely needs to meet the definition, but a definition without teeth is less frightening than a defintion that could lead to a war crimes tribunal, even an in absentia one for US political or Military leaders would be an embarassment.
War crime of torture
Elements
1.The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2.The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
3.Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
4.The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
5.The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
6.The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2
War crime of inhuman treatment
Elements
1.The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or
suffering upon one or more persons.
2.Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3.The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4.The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5.The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
The Gitmo interrogation techniques meet all elements excepting, of course, numbers 2 and 3 as applies to the GC. In practice here's what not torture:
Sleep deprivation cause by other than physical means (in other words not dripping water on someones head or putting them in a tiger cage for a weeek). Lying. Deception. Time shifting. Drugs that don't do physical or psychological damage and don't qualify as experimenation. Valium would be ok, Windex would not. Light deprivation. Isolation if it includes food and water and waste removal. Questioning for any length of time which does not cause physical harm. 72 hours fine, three weeks, not fine. IMPLIED but not THREATENED physical harm. "I'm not sure what will happen to you if you don't cooperate. I don't want to think about it, it turns my stomach" NOT "I'll cut your nuts off if you don't talk." Bullbaiting. Reward systems, ciggerettes, better food, whatever, for cooperating.
There's more non torture techniques, but I don't want to turn this into Interrogation 101. Polygraphs and whatnot are of course fine.
Probably the worst thing about "hard intterogation" techniques that I would classify as torture, the fake electirc chair and whatnot is that they're just not any mroe effective.
An experienced perons to person psyops operator can break ANYONE without resorting to those methods. ANYONE. I don't care what their level of fanatisicsm is. There's just no ROI to using harsh techniues except as a punative measure or as an example to a third party where there is some minimal value.
That clear enough?
Edited, Tue Jun 8 23:39:39 2004 by Smasharoo
