An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Is This Torture?
Don’t click the link until you’ve decided. Think carefully, now. This is a trick question.
[P]rolonged periods of exposure to the elements; humiliations such as public nakedness; confinement for up to several weeks in small ‘punishment cells’ in which prisoners were unable to stand upright or lie down; being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods; being hung by the wrists; being forced to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse.
Have you given it some thought? Okay — is this torture?
20 Responses to “Is This Torture?”
“[P]rolonged periods of exposure to the elements”
No. That would be failing to provide or withholding proper shelter. Unpleasant, but not torture.
“humiliations such as public nakedness”
No. Humiliation isn't torture, it's humiliation.
“confinement for up to several weeks in small ‘punishment cells’”
As described, sounds like torture to me.
“being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods”
Could be. Depends on details.
“being hung by the wrists”
Depends on details and duration. But probably a form of torture in most cases. There's not really many other reasons to hang someone from the wrists.
“being forced to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse”
Yes, sounds like a form of torture.
“Prolonged periods of exposure to the elements”
No, it's survival, since many people who get lost in the wild are exposed t the elements
“humiliations such as public nakedness”
i agree with UNNR as it's Humiliation
“confinement for up to several weeks in small ‘punishment cells’ in which prisoners were unable to stand upright or lie down”
no it's like being locked in a closet, it's misfortune but at the same time the interrogators can't do anything to the prisoners, therefor not torture (as torture usually has questions being asked at the same time)
“being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods”
the only danger there is if you get bored…
“being hung by the wrists
it's painful especially as you get older, therefor a form of torture
“being forced to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse”
standing maybe, but sitting? no, again, all you do is get bored
Wow, that's two comments in a row that make me a little sick to my stomach.
Thanks, Kathy, for posting this.
Roro, I think I must be getting jaded. I started laughing.
I think my fave is the humiliation. I guess I can't argue the point that humiliation is humiliation. It's still prohibited under anti-torture laws, though — it's “cruel and degrading treatment.”
At any rate, at least they're consistent. And I have obviously made my point.
“Prolonged periods of exposure to the elements”
No, it's survival, since many people who get lost in the wild are exposed t the elements
People die of exposure in the elements. Plus, most hikers aren't captives surrounded by armed guards.
Kathy — You MUST be getting jaded! Being hung by the wrists is “probably a form of torture”. If it weren't so damn scary, it would be funny…
There are a lot of subjects covered on this blog where I can totally see other people's points, where there's certainly a question of right and wrong with a lot of ambiguity in between, even if I have very strong opinions about them. My head keeps on exploding that suddenly torture is one of those subjects where people think there might be some ambiguity. This whole torture-isn't-really-torture thing does have a dark humor to it, in a 1984 dystopian how-the-hell-did-we-get-here double-speak sort of way…
“Wow, that's two comments in a row that make me a little sick to my stomach.”
Yeah, it's shocking when people disagree with your deeply held assumptions isn't it? Welcome to political discussion.
UNRR — My deeply held belief that torture is bad? and immoral? and that when my government signs a bunch of treaties saying they will not torture and pretends to be some shining beakon of freedom and general awesomeness that that should actually mean something? Are those the strongly held assumptions you're talking about? Yeah, it is actually shocking to find that people don't believe in those things. Maybe I'm naive or oh-so-new to “political discussion”, but the idea that our government is groovy with torture, and apparently so are you, does make me a little ill.
“My deeply held belief that torture is bad? and immoral?”
Yes, actually, among other things. The reason there is a debate on torture is because people have strongly differing opinions about it. There isn't even agreement on what constitutes torture (obviously).
“it is actually shocking to find that people don't believe in those things.”
Why would you find that shocking? Seriously. You don't ever read the opinions of people who disagree with your fundamental assumptions? You've never met a moral relativist before?
All -
Calling people bad names in a public forum can humiliate them. Is that then torture?
If you think not, then you have already accepted the concept that there is a definition, a line if you will, for when ANY activity or result that is displeasureable for an individual crosses from a legal action to illegal torture, and as obviously not everyone will share your exact views on where that line is for all possible activities and results, you, too, are a moral relativist in your own fashion.
We all are.
The problem between people on this issue is rarely in the extreme examples on either end of the spectrum, but rather in the middle, defining where that line is at.
Oh for goodness' sake UNRR, of course I've seen ideas that shock me before. “Seriously.” I understand it's a debate in this country, but it strikes me very much as an Orwellian debate. Like, if it suddenly became de rigueur to be discussing the political merits of Mein Kampf. I pretty much thought it was decided that the “we” that is the American population had pretty carefully weighed the evidence about torture, after having delved deeply into the history of its use by totalitarian regimes, (not, incidently, often used to get real info out of the subjects, but to terrorize them — the point of torture is torture), and decided that it's pretty messed up. I thought “we” had decided that a government that prides itself on being humane and fair, guided by principals of equality and democracy, “a more perfect union” and all that, should not torture.
So yeah, I understand where we are, I know this is a hot debate, but it's highly disturbing that there are people like you willing to stand up and say “Yes! We are a nation that tortures, but let's debate the merits of that position”. Yuck.
roro80 – You ignore the question I raised.
I consider myself as being opposed to torture. You consider yourself to be opposed to torture. Where we differ is in what each of us considers torture vs non-torture.
That truly is where the difference lies. Claiming anyone who does not share your point of view on where that line is somehow lesser than you opens you up to the same criticism from those who have even more restrictive definitions.
Not that i am one of those people, obviously.
AR — Sure, but there are pretty explicit defnitions of torture written into the treaties we've signed. From UNCAT:
…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.
—UN Convention Against Torture[1]
(BTW, I fail at html…)
I can't really see how any of the things listed in the original post would get by this definition.
When we believe and have some (even small) evidence that someone committed any manner of crime, we generally investigate to solidify, then the accused goes to court. Judges and juries interpret the law to decide if the accused is guilty and must be punished. I think that in the case of the US government and its torture policies, we need to get the heck on with the investigation part of this. If it turns out that what was done does not, in fact, meet the signed-to, agreed-upon, law-bound definition of torture, the investigations should be stopped. If there is sufficient evidence that the acts meet the definition of torture, send those responsible to their day in court and have the appointed judge or jury convict or acquit as they will.
None of this process involves deciding whether we, as a nation, think torture is ok. That is already decided, and the answer is “no”. It's on the books, it's in the treaties, it's in the horror films and documentaries for those of us who don't have international law degress. We know it's wrong. We can parse it to bits, but all this talk of ticking time bombs or really evil brown terrorists or starving someone is like dieting or exposure to the elements is like hiking in the woods is just frosting on something deeply rotten.
roro – glad to know you accept all the terms and definitions of all laws, treaties, and regulations as perfectly valid, unassailable on the merits, and fully defensible from any and all disagreement.
In fact, it seems you feel simply questioning any of them is proof of immorality. Or are you simply being selective on this issue, that we have gotten that one section of the law perfected?
AR — Wow…I don't actually know how to respond to that. I give an internationally agreed-upon definition of a word, and you're talking about perfection of law or something. Like I've said many times in this thread, I get it that there are some people who think that torture is ok, that it doesn't matter if our government does it, that things that clearly fall under the definition that has been internationally agreed-upon may not really be that bad, or that somehow there's some moral high ground to arguing any of those points. But, sure, if you want to put it that way, I would and do question the morality of people who argue that.
I mean, I guess we could take this to the philosophy of language, a la Humpty Dumpty vs Alice, and decide whether or not “words” have “meanings”, but moving from Orwellian dystopia to Carrollean absurdity doesn't necessarily make this conversation any less bizarre.
roro – sorry if I am not making myself clear enough.
I don't agree with all those definitions of torture, just as I don't agree with many other UN resolutions, agreements, treaties, and many other US laws and regulations. I think they are wrong. It is my absolute right to believe that, and from some of those beliefs comes my feeling that many of the actions discussed do not rise to the level of torture.
At no point have I said torture is OK, and nothing I have said is Orwellian in the least. I expressed my disagreement of the definition of the law, and you came back with 'but that is what the statute says', as if all laws a perfect, and all definitions correct and unassailable.
I cannot make it any clearer. We do not disagree on whether torture is acceptable; we disagree on what constitutes torture. And I reject some, not all, of the definitions you accept. It is that simple.
If you think it is bizarre or absurd to disagree with you, or with the definitions of some laws, so be it. I disagree that the government has the right to conduct drunk driving checkpoints and random urinalysis, too, despite the law saying otherwise. Do you find those positions Orwellian, Carrollean, bizarre, absurd, or immoral as well?
I'm curious as to what part of the definition is bothering you. Maybe there's another word that encompasses perfectly what you think of as “torture”, but that doesn't make the actual definition of the word change. I'm also curious as to which of the actions described above fall into the UNCAT definition but not into the special AR definition.
I don't agree with every law on the books — of course. There are many that I think are stupid or harmful. I certainly have no problem with dissent. This particular law (along with the ones in the “don't murder people” or “don't have sex with your kids” categories) enjoyed pretty universal support in this country until our government started to break it. THAT is something I have a problem with. THAT is what seems Orwellian. The redefinition of the word “torture” so that GWB's statement that “The United States does not torture” suddenly becomes the truth is Carrollean.
roro – I have no issue with the word torture, and of course there is no one word that can encompass my, or anyone's, definitions of those actions that constitute torture vs. not-torture. As I have been trying to say repeatedly, the whole crux of this discussion is what actions fall under the umbrella of the definition of torture.
I have also said the extremes are not where the problem exists, as almost all people agree on those (disfigurement, permanent bodily damage, etc)., but rather on the edge, the border, between what is and what is not torture.
You asked for a specific example. That is easy. It has been mentioned in this thread by a few people. Publicly displaying a naked person, while humiliating, simply does not rise to the level of torture in my mind. In fact, claiming discomfortable actions such as that debases the actual definition of torture, IMO, which should be left for use in describing significantly more heinous acts that that.
“I have also said the extremes are not where the problem exists, as almost all people agree on those (disfigurement, permanent bodily damage, etc)., but rather on the edge, the border, between what is and what is not torture.”
Ah, AR, you had me close with this one, you really did. The sentence and logic made total sense to me. Until you backed it up with an example (“Publicly displaying a naked person”) which in almost every context I can conceive would certainly be considered sexual assault. The argument can be made that sexual assault does not equal torture necessarily, but firstly it still isn't legal by any means, and secondly it could certainly be considered torture if used repeatedly or over long periods of time as a part of a process of mentally “breaking” a person. This might be especially effective in tormenting a person from particular cultures. (I don't think we need to go over how doing something once, say dripping a drop of water on someone's forehead, might not be torture, while doing it over and over again over a long period of time certainly could be.)
Back to the quote, I would actually agree that there are likely some things that fall on that grey line, and I can even concede that the line might actually be different for different subjects.
Roro -
I didn't 'have you going'; you just agreed with me in fact! And why would the fact that we differ in what we individually believe is torture in one specific example invalidate the correctness and logic of my statement the extremes are not where the problem exists, as almost all people agree on those (disfigurement, permanent bodily damage, etc)., but rather on the edge, the border, between what is and what is not torture
Your reply is an exact example of a 'border' issue, and you stated that even to yourself it is a border issue. As you raised the point, illegality does not equate to torture, and a complete context would be needed to decide in your own mind if a specific instance of this example rose to torture in a specific case.
I, on the other hand, simply never see that as rising to meet the definition of torture.
Again, we agree in principle that torture is unacceptable, but differ on the definition of what constitutes torture.