US grilled on torture by UN

[Hurin_Rules]

At the UN today, and continuing into next week, the US is required (as part of the terms of signing the UN Convention Against Torture) to answer the questions of a UN panel regarding its adherence to the Convention. Many of these questions are ones that the Bush administration has never effectively answered, and hence the proceedings hold considerable interest.

Here is an overview of the proceedings thus far:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4974852.stm

(You can also find the full list of questions if you click on the link named 'Committee key questions' on the same page.)


Some of the more interesting questions include:

1. How does Washington interpret the absolute ban on torture?

2. Interrogation practices: What rules and methods does the US employ?

3. Secret prisons: Why has the US established secret prisons?

4. Responsibility: Does the US take responsibility for torture committed by agents overseas?

5. Abu Ghraib: What measures have been taken to identify and remedy problems?

6. Investigation: Has there been an independent investigation into whether defence officials authorised torture?


More to come, to be sure.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Too bad they don't ask these questions of all their members, and demand hard answers from them.

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

Crazed Rabbit

[Hurin_Rules]

Too bad they don't ask these questions of all their members, and demand hard answers from them.

Indeed. It is lamentable that not all nations have signed the Conventions against Torture.

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

How do these relate to torture?

[Ice]

Indeed. It is lamentable that not all nations have signed the Conventions against Torture.



How do these relate to torture?

They don't. That wasn't the idea of that section of the post.

[Sjakihata]

Interesting thread Hurin, please keep us updated with details and articles.

Instead of a US vs UN thread, let's turn this into some constructive debate on the real issue; ban on turture

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, the USA signed agreements on uses of torture. And since the USA attacked another country partly as te dictator was torturing people it'd be nice to know that they're not doing the same.

Oh, of course the whole UN episode is a complete fiasco. But still the results are worthy of viewing as a comedy sketch.

[Tribesman]

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

Yep , feel free , but then they might grill the US on child rape by its servicemen , war crimes by the US , Americas role in the Oil for Food scandal , support for human rights abusing dictatorships , as well as its own human rights abuses ...and other scandals .
Ever heard the expression about stones and glass houses Rabbit , it cuts both ways ?

[Redleg]

Oh, of course the whole UN episode is a complete fiasco. But still the results are worthy of viewing as a comedy sketch.

Yes it should make for a rather interesting discussion.

[KrooK]

Don't worry Americans
USA pays 25% of UN budget. So UN will do nothing.
Of course if your soldier will be captured by other soldiers - they will be right to torture him.
But who cares - you got 2.000.000 soldiers

[Ice]

Don't worry Americans
USA pays 25% of UN budget. So UN will do nothing.
Of course if your soldier will be captured by other soldiers - they will be right to torture him.
But who cares - you got 2.000.000 soldiers

Please, go educate yourself.

[Devastatin Dave]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Uh, hmmmm, let's see... UN grills, US torture, wait who started this thread? Oh, nevermind, back to sleep... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

[Kanamori]

I love the Old Testament mentality of some here. "They do wrong, so it is OK for us to do wrong!" Wrong is wrong. Duh.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the UN is faultless, but the fact that the UN has faults doesn't, some how, absolve us of ours. Some of the practices have been absolutely disgusting and inhumane.

[Hurin_Rules]

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

This would be what we call a 'non sequitur'.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Uh, hmmmm, let's see... UN grills, US torture, wait who started this thread? Oh, nevermind, back to sleep... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And this is an 'Ad hominem'.

Neither adds anything to the discussion.

[Redleg]

Neither adds anything to the discussion.

Pretty much sums up the United Nations addressing the issue now doesn't....

[Hurin_Rules]

Pretty much sums up the United Nations addressing the issue now doesn't....

LOL, well done my friend, well done.

Now THAT, at least, is an argument.

Still, I think the UN addressing the issue does at least raise the profile of the issue and, for once, call the administration to account--verbally, if nothing more. And that, I think, is something.

[Redleg]

LOL, well done my friend, well done.

Now THAT, at least, is an argument.

Still, I think the UN addressing the issue does at least raise the profile of the issue and, for once, call the administration to account--verbally, if nothing more. And that, I think, is something.

Thanks - it was just to good of a one liner not to do...

But you are right, the adminstration should be able to defend its stance concerning torture if there is nothing wrong with the policy. If not, then the verbal exchange could be interesting.

[Devastatin Dave]

Neither adds anything to the discussion.

Neither does posting your 1000th American bashing thread. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[AntiochusIII]

Neither does posting your 1000th American bashing thread. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

1000th? Hurin Rules must be really busy then, using more than one-third of his post counts posting 1000 American bashing thread...



Anyway, I think it won't do much except a fun episode to watch: What Would The President Responds?

I'd rather hope that it would (quite unlikely) led to positive response against torture within the administration. Those CIA crooks are pathetic arses, anyway--torture has never been known to be effective. Anyone would scream anything to make it stop.

[Soulforged]

Oh, of course the whole UN episode is a complete fiasco. But still the results are worthy of viewing as a comedy sketch.

Not sure if it's a complete fiasco. International organisms can impose penalties to the signataries who violate the principles and objectives of the treaty, nothing makes USA immune to that. Let's remember that the US also signed the Pact of Costa Rica, and though it never ratified the latter, by the principle of good faith (not sure about the translation) the state cannot contradict this treaty or others (Convention of Viena about the Right of Treaties). But of course this should be treated by the Interamerican Court.
We're however on the stage of friendly inquiry, let's hope that this is enough to terminate with any acts of torture.

[Lemur]

The torture issue is important enough that it shouldn't be sidetracked into U.N. bashing thread #4,671. With any luck, Americans will speak their mind on the issue this November.

[Joker85]

Interesting that the questions were posted but not the answers. So far the original poster already guarded himself a bit I believe against both the past, and in all probability any future answers by disregarding them all as "they didn't really answer them anyway". That is an opinion, made all the more difficult by the nature of these charges, designed to keep one permanently on the defensive. I mean, how can you prove you didnt send x to y country with the knowledge and for the purpose of him being tortured? You can't.

It's also interesting that people try to label those who do not take the UN seriously on this issue or anything else as "pro torture". People then throw the problems of the UN back at the US and say "you have those problems too". I guess that's the point, we all know about the African rape scandals by UN soldiers in the past. Yet America isn't calling the UN into New York to "testify about Child rape" or implying that the UN, sanctioned by Annon, is running around raping as many children as they possibly get their hands on.

If people are truly interested in debate and hearing both sides, I would suggest the first step would be to, in threads like these, actually post American responses in these situations and not just links to the questions/accusations with a pre-planted "that's BS!" attitude to any answer given in response. It's hard enough to prove you didn't do something. Especially when all the evidence the other side has to offer are "unnamed sources" who are claiming whatever they want.

It seems to me that many people already have their mind made up. Their favorite website ran a story from a "source" who said we tortured this or that person and decided it must be government sanctioned policy from Bush.

My view on it is, on the battlefield level there have been incidents of abuse/torture. There have also been incidents at the detention level. I also believe when it is found out those participents are court martialed and sent to prison/discharged. One female soldier in Guantanamo was removed for taking off her blouse during an interogation in an attempt to make the prisoner feel intimidated/uncomfortable. Hell, people got what 5-10 years in jail for making a bunch of naked prisoners make pyramids and stand on chairs. My problem is with this unfounded, and still unproved notion that Bush is sitting in the white house saying "oh goody we just picked up 15 more pows today, better get ready to ship em off to Egypt for some good ole electroshock on the testies".

I believe as a whole, the United States does everything in its power to abide by anti torture agreements because it is moral to do so. In Guantanamo inmates are allowed religously sensative meals, their quran, and even friday prayers played. They have muslim chaplins with them, and are allowed prayer rugs etc.

I have no problems with the UN investigating, and I have no problems with our officials answering the questions. My problem is that, as I said, people already have their minds made up, and the reason this is pointless is because as the original poster implied, no answer the US can give will be enough. They will still be required to give concrete proof to a negative and until they do will be screamed at "YOU TORTURE EVERYONE!!!!!!".

One final note on this, I think it would be helpful to atleast see where everyone is coming on what they view "torture" as as well. Some human rights groups view sleep depravation during interogation as torture. Some others view anything short of chopping off body parts "ok". So using any extreme's definition of torture is kind of pointless.

[Tribesman]

One final note on this, I think it would be helpful to atleast see where everyone is coming on what they view "torture" as as well. Some human rights groups view sleep depravation during interogation as torture. Some others view anything short of chopping off body parts "ok". So using any extreme's definition of torture is kind of pointless.

Now Joker , that is an interesting point .
I suppose that a good starting point for views on what is considered prisoner abuse might by the State Departments annual reports on countries human rights violations .
After all , torturing prisoners is just abusing them in order to get information (unless it is being done just for fun) .
So does it mention sleep depravation of prisoners for interrogation as one of the things that it considers a no-no ?
Yes , even when the country concerned is a very close ally , so if sleep depravation is torture when someone else does it then it must also be torture whichever country does it .
Same with using stress positions , strange that , I could have sworn there were some politicians claiming that these things were OK .

[Hurin_Rules]

Interesting that the questions were posted but not the answers.

I know you've read a lot into this, but the reason I didn't post the answers is that they are not available yet (other than in summary form, and in fact in the original post I cited the BBC article that summarized them). The US government has only begun to summarize its arguments, reading from prepared statements before the committee, and will only be forced to explicate them in detail, and endure cross examination, starting today (and lasting till Monday).

The questions, on the other hand, were given beforehand and are therefore available on the website.

I'm sorry if you feel your perspective was not properly defended, but part of the problem with this issue is that the US has not provided full answers to these questions yet. If you can provide a full defense of the position of the US goverment, or its answers to the questions, then I urge you to do so, and we will all carefully consider them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The previously mentioned UN Convention Against Torture states:

For the purposes of this Convention, 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.

Since this definition includes intimidation and coercion and discrimination in any form, torture effectively consists of anything more "strenuous" than asking a reasonably well-fed and well-rested individual questions in a neutral tone of voice. It would appear to preclude GoodCop/Bad Cop routines as well as water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and all of the other obvious forms of torture.

Signatories include (mostly from 1985):

States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 22, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture
Algeria
Argentina
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Cameroon
Chile
Colombia
Cyprus
Egypt
Estonia
Germany
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Jordan
Libya
Mexico
Nepal
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Senegal
Somalia
Uganda
United Kingdom
Venezuela
Yemen
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 28, that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture to investigate allegations of widespread torture within their boundaries
Afghanistan
Belarus
Bulgaria
China
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Israel
Ukraine
States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Belgium
Bolivia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Gabon
Gambia
Iceland
Indonesia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Sudan
United States of America

Quite a number of states have not signed the document at all, even with caveats.


Please note: Since virtually any form of information-gathering technique aside from simple questioning or bribery is precluded, and since formal legal evidence against captured terrorist operatives is difficult to obtain at best, adherence to this convention would likely decrease the number of terrorist operatives taken prisoner.

[Soulforged]

Seamus, I think that the USA actually signed and ratified the treaty. Here's my source. Yes, ratified the 21 of october of 1994.
The United States made the following declaration: "The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration."

[Sjakihata]

Neither does posting your 1000th American bashing thread.

This is what I meant by: let's not turn it in to a US vs UN thread, and clearly you have, again, no clue what so ever. You see every thread as american bashing, I think you are paranoid - this is a discussion on torture and the fact that the US signed a treaty not to do it - and still they do, and you come up with a few hundreds Zs, either get some arguments/reasoning going, or please just find a thread you like, thankyouverymuch!

[Spetulhu]

Since this definition includes intimidation and coercion and discrimination in any form, torture effectively consists of anything more "strenuous" than asking a reasonably well-fed and well-rested individual questions in a neutral tone of voice.

The text runs on a bit, but my understanding is that intimidation and coercion is what you're trying to do by using torture. Discrimination is another reason to torture people, not torture in itself.

[Devastatin Dave]

This is what I meant by: let's not turn it in to a US vs UN thread, and clearly you have, again, no clue what so ever.thankyouverymuch!

Ummmm, who doesn't have a clue.How can this NOT be a US versus UN thread when the very title says "US grilled on torture by UN". who's the clueless one again?

[rory_20_uk]

Surely the US should be working with the UN to help explain the situation. After all, the US is signed up to the UN and so it is hardly a verses issue. It can only be seen as USA vs UN if the USA is breaking conventions and is bieng brought ot task over that fact, which is a stance that many take.