What is Torture?
Sleep deprivation can be a form of torture. It all depends of the definition. Usually its described by total sleep allowed per day and length of continuous sleep. Letting a prisoner sleep for 12 hours a day is meaningless if you wake them up every 15 minutes.
Maybe this needs another post but it is pointless to argue about the definition of torture if there is no agreement on its effectiveness.
Is Torture Ever Necessary?
Is torture effective? Yes. Be clear, by saying its effective all we're admitting is that an effect was achieved. Whether it was the desired effect, that is an entirely different matter. While torture may be effective, neither is it efficient, nor is it efficacious.
(Courtesy of Wikipedia)
The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, "being very or not much effective". However it does not inform on the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient.
Posts
6 comments:
This is somewhat of a tangential direction, but I don't think the issue with the Gitmo detainees has ever been whether to torture. Everyone agrees that torture is bad, even if there has been a difference of opinion on whether particular "interrogation procedures" (e.g., sleep deprivation) constitute torture.
I think the more fundamental disagreement is over the status of detainees - are they criminals or military prisoners (classified as enemy combatants by the Bush Administration). Those who hold to the former classification favor bringing Gitmo detainees into federal court for trial, and those who hold to the latter favor military commissions for Gitmo detainees. (Though I can't make any sense of the Obama Administration's decision to try KSM in federal court but trying other Gitmo detainees via military commision.) The concern of those who favor military commissions is the mixing of criminal law with wartime operations, thereby tieing the hands of the military (does the Army have to read Miranda rights to everyone they capture on the battle field?), or paradoxically, leading the military to prefer killing over capturing.
Admiitedly, the above reflects more recent opinion on what I think is the core issue in this debate. I didn't see it this way earlier this year, as I too got caught up in what I now think was an unhelpful strawman.
Ok, we both agree that torture is bad. We also agree that it is a curious course the current administration takes with KSM.
It is understandable to not want to burden the military during an ongoing operation, but it can be said that following the Geneva Convention, even for detainees that do not fit the definition of a prisoner of war, would have been far less onerous that what is known to have happened at Gitmo and various other detainee facilities. Therefore, it is a bit disingenuous for the Government to say they don't want their hands tied but are the source of the policies that make it so hard to try the detainees either in a civil or military court.
If a government follows the standard of treatment described in the Geneva Convention, the choice of venue to pursue justice would be a simple matter to choose at a later date.
Maybe what I'm saying is that because the reason for deviation from the Geneva Convention was to have a legal basis for "enhanced interrogation methods", you can no longer separate the detainment status from how you treat them. The only reason to deviate from the Geneva Convention is to not be held to an accepted standard of care. If they are criminals, POWs, or unlawful combatants, it would be a much simpler matter to cover outside of heat of conflict. When you do not follow the Geneva Convention, you will then be either admit to violations if the really do turn out to be POWs, or come up with some rationale for said deviation.
For the sake of argument, let's say that the detainees do not merit POW status. Is there some other status that supports harsh treatment? Or in other words, is following the Geneva Convention so onerous that we only abide by it as a sort of gentlemens agreement between signatories?
I've always thought of the Geneva Convention as a sort of Moral Code between States that took the form of law by those States who agree to be bound by it. As such, it is a pledge of honor. A statement by a State that it recognizes its unbridled power over those captured and agrees that use of said power is fraught with injustice and vengeance; that we will treat out captives the way we would want our captured to be treated, that there is a minimum amount of dignity even prisoners deserve, regardless of the reason for imprisonment.
I believe your reference to Miranda rights is an attempt at a purposeful exaggeration hoping to illuminate a point. It is in the Commander in Chief's power to go after the counties enemies either through police power or through military power. If the goal is to capture criminals then it will be necessary to follow the rules of the civil court. If that is not the goal, than I would ask whether the claim of binding the hands of the military is nothing more than an appeal to fear.
If you don't want to have to read the Miranda rights you don't have to, you also then would be limited in your venues of disposition.
The Administration wants their cake and to eat it too. They don't want to abide by the existing rules, but then don't want to admit that they broken any either.
I've found the question of detainee status to be intrinsically bound with the desire to treat them differently without admitting such.
The reason you cannot have the military reading Miranda rights is precisely the difference between apprehending criminal suspects and capturing combatants on the battlefield. Holding the military to criminal enforcement standards would compromise the ability of the military to prosecute war. Soldiers are not police officers and you can not possibly expect to hold them to that standard. Bringing combatants like KSM into federal court blurs the lines between criminal enforcement and the military and brings the ArtIcle III courts into the arena that military commissions and courts-martial have filled in the past.
And of course there is a difference in the way POWs are treated vs the way ordinary criminal suspects are treated. Category of detainment matters in a very real and practical way from a legal standpoint.
None of this is to condone torture. The Army had these enemy combatants that did not fit into any category because the conflict did not for into any category. Time was needed to develop the legal framework for the new category. The Bush Administratin screwed up by not immediately going to Congress and by mistreating enemy combatants, inviting the charges of torture and the subsequent deviation of the debate. (Torture has a specific legal connotation, so I'll leave it to the legal minds to find whether the detainees were tortured.)
The fact that the Bush Administration went overboard in their treatment of enemy combatants does not excuse the conflation of the two categories.
We agree that the military should not be trying to follow the same rules as is required for a criminal case. We also agree that the Bush administration erred.
We can even agree that there needs to be a new designation of detainment. It turns out signatories are bound even if their opponent are not. (Wikipedia) "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation.[7]"
My basic question is why not follow the Geneva Convention for all classes of detainees? You want to create a new detainee status, fine but what does that have to do with straying from a standard of treatment that we've followed for over 50 years?
What is so onerous about it that we need a new status. This has nothing to do with civil courts or Miranda rights.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions)
"What is so onerous about it that we need a new status. This has nothing to do with civil courts or Miranda rights."
It has everything to do with civil courts since the Obama Administration is trying terrorists in... er, civil courts.
There has to be a new status of detainee because al-Qaeda and the affiliated terrorist organizations we are battling are non-State actors. The Geneva Convention apply to international armed conflict between armed forces of sovereign states (and to most rebellions within the confines of a single state). Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says it is for Congress to construct the framework within which the Government could act. The Administration should have consulted Congress and asked it to act as soon as possible after 9/11. It was for the Executive Branch to unilaterally define the rules of the new category of conflict.
I'm sure the Geneva Conventions would be a fine standard to which we should adhere regarding treatment of unlawful enemy combatants (seemingly the current term being used to describe this new category of detainee). However, it has to be defined and made legally binding (i.e., legislated).
Post a Comment