Definition of Torture Has Evidently Changed
by Kevin Roeten (3/14/08)
One thing that’s certainly diverse is people’s definition of torture. The dictionary (Thorndike-Barnhart) defines it: “the act or fact of inflicting very severe pain.” If you knew a close relative would die unless the proper information was taken from a terrorist, what techniques would you consider acceptable to save your relative?
The normal populace would probably consider anything that would involve extreme physical pain as being unacceptable. Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared torture unacceptable (for POWs and enemy civilians). In times of war, signatories of the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions also agreed not to torture the above protected persons.
But then, the War on Terrorism is against terrorists. They do not come from a particular country. There would be no “enemy civilians”---only terrorists. None have ever been signatories of any Geneva Convention.
On 5/24/07, during a raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq military officials recovered a variety of crude drawings depicting torture methods like “blowtorch to the skin”, and “eye removal”. Other torture instruments like meat cleavers, wire cutters, and whips were also seized.
Pictures found in this al-Qaeda torture chamber showed a drill into the hand and the severing of limbs being commonplace. In an earlier raid in another location, soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was beaten daily. In a raid earlier in the week, Allied forces had freed 5 Iraqis who had been padlocked in a room in Karmah. One of the victims was a boy. The entire group was reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses.
The bottom line, terrorists like al-Qaeda go by no “rules”. If they can get information wanted, any method is acceptable. In actuality, Amnesty International estimates that 75% of the world’s governments currently practice torture.
One ‘could’ say prisoners held by the US have been tortured in many ways. Prisoners have been locked in cells and been forced to listen to rock music for hours on end. Some prisoners are deprived of sleep for more than 40 hours which seems very effective in yielding confessions. The most hated method involves “waterboarding”, which gives no direct physical pain but makes the prisoners feel like they are drowning, even though they are not.
Certainly any interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual have been incorporated into possible terrorist prisoners as a method they must be prepared to withstand. But the US uses no method with direct severe pain (like terrorists) to expunge information. Death is certainly not an intended result from any method used.
The current administration realizes that al-Qaeda would have succeeded in another attack on the American homeland had certain info not been procured. Techniques used did not involve physical torture, or extreme pain. But al-Qaeda, composed of terrorists, does not conform to any rules of non-torture.
A complicated issue comes down to something very straight-forward. If a terrorist is planning to maim, burn, or kill a few thousand Americans, what would one do to keep that from happening?
The answer may be “anything” for some--especially if a close relative would be a victim. But many would agree this technique that involves no major pain or permanent damage is the only acceptable option. Unfortunately, it seems very obvious that simple dislike for Bush is causing many to consider the definition of “torture” to be all-inclusive.
One wonders how they would consider tickling someone until spit was evolved from their mouth. Maybe their whole perspective would change if they knew there was a good chance their mom would die a horrible death.
Kevin Roeten
http://kevinroeten.us/
|
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Contributors, authors, columnists and editor are not paid.
Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of the USA Sentinel.
Content is Copyright ©2006-2012 the individual authors.
