Bush may have forgotten that this U.N. treaty–which went into force on June 26th, 1987, and to which the U.S. is a partner–already has outlawed torture. Congressional Study Reviews U.N. Anti-Torture TreatyBy Cliff Montgomery – Mar. 13th, 2008George W. Bush vetoed last week a Congressional attempt to set limits on the CIA’s tendency to torture anyone the Agency assumes to be a ‘terrorist’. So we’ve decided to counter by quoting from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study on the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) treaty. The CRS report was released on Jan. 25th.The U.N. treaty, which went into force on June 26th, 1987, and to which the U.S. is a partner, defines and outlaws torture clearly and concisely. We therefore quote from the recent CRS report on CAT below:“Over the past several decades, a number of international agreements and declarations has condemned and/or sought to prohibit the practice of torture by public officials, leading some to conclude that torture is now prohibited under customary international law.”Perhaps the most notable international agreement prohibiting torture is the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention or CAT), signed by the United States and more than 140 other countries.Definition of Torture under CAT“Whereas a number of prior international agreements and declarations condemned and/or prohibited torture, CAT appears to be the first international agreement to actually attempt to define the term.”CAT Article 1 specifies that, for purposes of the Convention, torture refers to:
- 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.
“Importantly, this definition specifies that both physical and mental suffering can constitute torture, and that for such suffering to constitute torture, it must be purposefully inflicted.”Further, acts of torture covered under the Convention must be committed by someone acting under the color of law.”Thus, for example, if a private individual causes intense suffering to another, absent the instigation, consent, or acquiescence of a public official, such action does not constitute ‘torture’ for purposes of CAT.”The Convention’s definition of ‘torture’ does not include all acts of mistreatment causing mental or physical suffering, but only those of a severe nature.”According to the State Department’s section-by-section analysis of CAT included in President Reagan’s transmittal of the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent, the Convention’s definition of torture was intended to be interpreted in a ‘relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.'”For example, the State Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police brutality, ‘while deplorable, does not amount to torture’ for purposes of the Convention, which is ‘usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices…[such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme pain.'”This understanding of torture as a severe form of mistreatment is further made clear by CAT Article 16, which obligates Convention parties to ‘prevent in any territory under [their] jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to acts of torture,’ thereby indicating that not all forms of inhumane treatment constitute torture.”In general, Convention parties are obligated to take ‘effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under [their] jurisdiction.'”They are also forbidden from expelling, returning, or extraditing a person to another State where there are ‘substantial grounds’ for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”A central objective of CAT was to criminalize all instances of torture. CAT Article 4 requires States to ensure that all acts of torture are criminal offenses, subject to appropriate penalties given their ‘grave nature.'”State parties are also required to apply similar criminal penalties to attempts to commit and complicity or participation in torture.”Accordingly, it appears that even though CAT requires States to take ‘effective measures’ to prevent torture only within their territorial jurisdiction, this does not mean that States are therefore permitted to engage in torture in territories not under their jurisdiction.”Although a State might not be required to take proactive measures to prevent acts of torture beyond its territorial jurisdiction, it nevertheless has an obligation to criminalize such extraterritorial acts and impose appropriate penalties.”Like what you’re reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of thee-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
