US denies terror suspect torture

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From today's news

Source - BBC News

US denies terror suspect torture

The US has defended its treatment of suspects detained in the war on terror, telling a UN committee that it considers the use of torture as wrong.

US Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Barry Lowenkron told the Committee Against Torture in Geneva that US law prohibited such practices.

Senior US officials are testifying before the committee for the first time since the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Rights groups accuse the US of flouting the UN Convention against Torture.

They say the US allows the torture and inhumane treatment of foreign terror suspects at their detention centres around the word, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In his opening statement, Mr Lowenkron stressed that the US government rejected the use of torture.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Fishdude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

OOOh yes let's have a long, pedantic debate on the definition of 'torture'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

OOOh yes let's have a long, pedantic debate on the definition of 'torture'.

We could, but the definition in any case is quite clear.

Its only when politicians are looking for ways to justify it, does it become in any way obscure.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

OOOh yes let's have a long, pedantic debate on the definition of 'torture'.

We could, but the definition in any case is quite clear.

Do you mean ""an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person"?

Mental pain and suffering is clear?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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 the UN Convention:

As clear as a legal definition can make it - but there's nothing new about legal language being twisted to arrive at new 'interpretations'. There's an issue of common sense, and 'reasonable interpretation' in there as well.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Fishdude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's an issue of common sense, and 'reasonable interpretation' in there as well.

'Reasonable interpretation' isn't as easy as it sounds. Heck, if the SCOTUS can't even agree on what is and isn't porn, how the heck do we get around to defining torture? JMHO, of course

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's an issue of common sense, and 'reasonable interpretation' in there as well.

'Reasonable interpretation' isn't as easy as it sounds. Heck, if the SCOTUS can't even agree on what is and isn't porn, how the heck do we get around to defining torture? JMHO, of course

Sure its not 100% clear, but then does language even allow for an absolute when it is setting down a law that relies upon subjective interpretation.

For example, "That was uncomfortable, but was it torture?" Vs "That was unbearable, that was torture".

This is partly why a lot of laws are decided (and defended) by consensus and common sense interpretation.