The United States is said to uphold an important document that relates to how people should be treated when accused of crimes. This document maintains that prisoners should not be tortured.
It has stood as a refuge for many people and had been the hallmark of America’s example of fair treatment of prisoners. Here are the first four Acts of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Article 1
1. 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.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
In December 2008 Cheney made comments specific to torture, using words like “enhanced interrogation,” the euphemism for torture. This is what he said
in an interview with the Washington Times reported by Consortium News, an independent investigative reporting group:
“I thought that it was absolutely the right thing to do,” Cheney said of what he called the “enhanced interrogation” of the detainees. “I thought the [administration’s] legal opinions that were rendered [endorsing the harsh treatment] were sound. I think the techniques were reasonable in terms of what they [the CIA interrogators] were asking to be able to do. And I think it produced the desired result.”
Cheney underlined that he did not and does not believe water boarding to be torture. This is in spite of military interrogators, Colin Powell, John McCain, Judge Crawford, in charge of the cases at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and a host of scholars in the field. But Cheney wasn’t alone in his defense of torture. President Bush agreed with the decision and was instrumental in its use.
On January 11
Bush was interviewed about water boarding and other techniques used to interrogate prisoners held in custody by the United States. He argued that water-boarding and techniques like that helped save American lives. He cited the interrogation with Al Qaeda Strategiest Khalid Shaikh Mohammed where water-boarding was used and said, “We believe the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.”
The military judge, a top U.S. official assigned to the case, disagrees with Bush and Cheney, who may have jeopardized the prosecution of individuals who may indeed have been truly guilty of terrorism, thus creating serious problems for Barack Obama, the new President of the United States and the decisions regarding the prisoners who remain at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Susan Crawford, the senior Bush administration official assigned to oversee the prosecution of detainees maintained that she could not refer Qahtani for prosecution because he had been tortured. This is
an excerpt of one of the many citations available on this matter:
"We tortured Qahtani,"-- "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. That's why I did not refer the case"
Those who wonder whether or not Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their actions need to read and reread Article 4 of the Geneva Convention on torture and what it clearly says. The legal authorities have likely been reviewing this, and
like John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, may be determining whether a special counsel should be assigned to investigate the policies and decisions of the Bush Administration specific to decisions like torture.
As a citizen of the United States who believes in its ideals, I hope that Obama will move to get a special counsel assigned to investigate George Bush and his compatriots so that the ugliness of torture and other foul acts not be repeated by a country that upholds justice and fair treatment as part of its legacy. If we don't, we ignore the promises we have made to other members of the United Nations and can't condemn any acts made by others that violate its conventions.
