May 22, 2006

Ask Amnesty: U.S. Torture Policy Under Scrutiny by U.N. Committee

The U.N. Committee Against Torture (CAT) is currently examining U.S. compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and is expected to release its concluding remarks on May 19th. In its initial written report to the Committee, the U.S. government stated its unequivocal opposition to the use or practice of torture under any circumstances. Despite these assertions, Amnesty International is concerned that the U.S. government has not only failed to take steps to eradicate torture, but has also created a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish.

Please join us from 1:00 – 2:00 PM Eastern time on Monday, May 22nd for an online discussion with renowned human rights law professor David Weissbrodt. We will explore the CAT’s investigation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees both in the United States and in U.S. detention sites around the world, as well as other issues related to U.S. torture policy.

Professor Weissbrodt has written on a wide range of subjects related to human rights, including torture and ill-treatment, and has served as a member of the U.N. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (1996-2003), including as its Chairperson for the 53rd session (2001-02). Professor Weissbrodt has been a member of Amnesty International since 1972, and has served in several national and international positions within AI, including undertaking investigations of ill-treatment in several countries.

Featured Guest: David Weissbrodt

From our featured guest: "Please join us with your questions and comments on May 22nd."

---

Question Submitted by Lori:

The US had been running schools within the US to teach "alternative interrogation techniques" AKA torture at military bases such as Ft. Benning and Ft. Brag. Is this practice still continuing? and how does it get spun to fit into the current statements that torture is wrong?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Over the years there has been evidence that the U.S. military has engaged in “torture resistance training” in which recruits are trained to try to resist torture and ill-treatment. Unfortunately, these training methods compel U.S. military instructors to engage in ill-treatment and condition U.S. military to use such techniques on each other and then maybe on others. I am not familiar with the "alternative interrogation techniques" you mention and I do not know whether these trainings are still be used, if they are different from the “torture resistance training.” To the extent that these training procedures involve torture or ill-treatment, they are forbidden by national and international law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by David:

As a young marine in 1958 we were given specific training on the treatment of captives which would have forbidden the behavior we have seen recently. Are military personnel given such training today, and specifically are they advised that they must disobey orders to mistreat prisoners?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Military should be given training on their obligations to treat detainees humanely and they should be informed that if they receive an illegal order about inhumane treatment, they should not only refuse the order, but report the illegal order to the supervisor of the officer who gave the illegal order. It is very difficult as a practical matter for junior military staff to refuse an illegal order, but the staff should recognize that they take a risk of being prosecuted (as is happening today with the dog handlers at Abu Ghraib).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jean:

Professor Weissbrodt, do you have any suggestions or solutions to the problem of more open torture and tortures current acceptance by the current US administration? Has torture been used in the past to this degree and this openly? Thank You and good fortune in your work.

David Weissbrodt answers:

Amnesty International developed as early as 1984 a 12-point program for the Prevention of Torture. That program is as relevant today for preventing torture by U.S. authorities as it was in 1984 for torturing countries in Latin America and elsewhere. The first requirement of the program is that the highest authorities in a government should indicate their total opposition to torture. The second is that there should be limits on incommunicado detention. The third is that there should be no secret detention. The fourth is that there should be safeguards during interrogation and custody. The fifth is that there should be independent investigation of reports of torture. 6. No use of statements extracted under torture. 7. Prohibition of torture in law. 8. Prosecution of alleged torturers. 9. Training procedures to prevent torture. 10. Compensation and rehabilitation. 11. Governments should use international procedures to stop torture by other governments. 12. Governments should ratify treaties and other international instruments forbidding torture. The program elaborates on each of those points and the full program should be consulted. The U.S. government approach is unfortunately far short of fulfilling that program. For example, the persent administration has announced its opposition to torture, but the administration has so narrowly defined torture as to fail to comply with the international understanding of the absolute prohibition of both torture and “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Seth:

How do U.S. human rights violations compare to those being perpetrated by other nations, particularly those known for having poor human rights histories, including China and North Korea?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Amnesty International does not compare violations by one country as compared with the conduct of other nations. Each nation has an obligation to fulfill its international human rights obligations. Human rights advocates do not want to excuse the conduct of one nation by saying that it is not as bad as some other nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Paul:

How can there be any doubt that this Bush administration advocates "Torture"? It has been verified by many official & victims of torture, and thewn they attempt to hide it, even deny it on world TV???

David Weissbrodt answers:

There is, as you suggest, considerable evidence that the U.S. Government has been engaged in the use of torture and ill-treatment. President Bush has announced his opposition to torture, but the administration has so narrowly defined torture as to fail to comply with the international understanding of the absolute prohibition of both torture and “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The U.S. Government also advocates secret and incommunicado detention which facilitates torture and other ill-treatment. Those practices must be stopped.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Barbara:

Since the U.S. has basically chosen to ignore anything the UN has to say about current events in the world, ie; attacking Iraq because the current administration decided that it simply wanted to, how do you plan to get the Bush administration to listen to your reccomendations?

David Weissbrodt answers:

The U.S. needs international law and worldwide cooperation in pursuing its own objectives in regard to trade, the struggle against terrorism, etc. Hence, it is important for all nations to require the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations and to cooperate with other nations consistent with the rule of law. The U.S. tries to maintain the respect of other nations and human rights advocates must press both the U.S. and its allies to fulfill their responsibilities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Henry:

(1) Has Amnesty polled each US Senator to have each submit a question? (2) Have any of them submitted a question? (3)How can we get our Senators to take a stand, one way or another, on holding honest investigations and initiating criminal action where torture has occurred?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have encouraged all members of Congress to oppose torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Congress did adopt the Detainees Treatment Act, which states, “No individual in the custody or physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” More efforts are, however, required to implement this provision and to assure that violators are brought to justice. Indeed, there was as a part of the Detainees Treatment Act a restriction on the access of detainees in Guantanamo to the federal courts. That restriction is lamentable and should be removed from the legislation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by David:

Torturing prisioners is a violation of the Geneva Convention that the U.S. has agreed with. Torture of accused felons is also a violation of our own constitution and international human rights. How can the U.S. justify torture for any detainee and how can we expect to have any of our prisioners protected under these law?

David Weissbrodt answers:

You are correct that torture and ill-treatment are forbidden by the Geneva Conventions in times of armed conflict, various other treaties (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading or Treatment or Punishment), and the U.S. Constitution (Due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.) The U.S. does not try to justify torture; the position of the U.S. Government is that it opposes torture. The problem is that the administration attempts to so narrowly define torture that it actually allows torture as internationally defined, including forcing detainees to stand for long periods of time, engaging in sensory deprivation of detainees, putting detainees in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time. The U.S. has agreed not to engage in the broader range of ill-treatments characterized as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but has tried to limit the applicability of that prohibition. The Detainees Treatment Act imposes that standard as a matter of national law, but still the U.S. Government has not been fulfilling its responsibilities. We must expect and, indeed, demand that our government comply with its international and national legal responsibilities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Deborah:

I have information about US-sponsored torture in Vietnam in 1971 and in El Salvador in 1978. Does anyone want this information and who should I contact?

David Weissbrodt answers:

I believe that there would be interest in these historical examples of torture by the U.S. I will send you my email address in a separate message and we can discuss how that information might be directed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Adam Dunlap:

When the United States Government has become uncontrollable what can I do to fix it? I feel powerless in my attempts to stop my own government or even to hold it accountable for it's actions. Where are the checks and balances that we need? Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. Adam

David Weissbrodt answers:

The U.S. political system affords residents a number of ways by which we can influence our government. First, we can be active in making sure that every one of our members of Congress and other political officials hear our views. Elections and assisting in campaigns provide a periodic opportunity to express our views. But we should not wait for elections. We can also support organizations such as Amnesty International that can speak for us whenever there is an opportunity to express human rights concerns in the legislature, courts, and administrative agencies. The most important thing is not to lose hope or stop trying.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Taniya:

Hello all, it truly saddens me to even ask this query, but with the political climate, anything is possible I guess. My question is: Does U.S media have any idea abour this, and why isn't it discussed openly? There seems to be big honchos controlling the media!

David Weissbrodt answers:

There have been regular stories in the New York Times, Washington Post, the National Public Radio, and some better local media outlets about human rights violations by the U.S. Government. There is a need, however, to encourage other media to carry human rights stories. You can inform yourself also by using the resources of the World Wide Web.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Peter:

when Bush signed the McCain amendment he also issued a signing letter that gutted the amendment: why not submit bush's signing letter as proof of his support for torture??

David Weissbrodt answers:

The Committee Against Torture did, indeed, refer to the signing statement. Here is what the Committee said last week in its concluding comments on the U.S.:

8. The Committee welcomes the State party’s clarification that the statement of the U.S. President on signing the Detainee Treatment Act on 30 December 2005 is not to be interpreted as a derogation by the President from the absolute prohibition of torture.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/observations/usa2006.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jacqueline:

Why isn't the UN going after Bush & Co for War Crimes? We cannot have WWIII before somebody does something. What's taking so long?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Several U.N. mechanisms have been “going after” the U.S. Administration. The most important recent example is the Committee Against Torture that has called on the U.S. Government to stop using torture and ill-treatment as well as procedures (secret detention, incommunicado detention, etc.) that facilitate torture. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/observations/usa2006.html

If by “going after” you mean prosecuting those responsible for engaging in torture/ill-treatment, there is the possibility obtaining criminal jurisdiction against U.S. officials who have engaged in or aided or abetted acts of torture/ill-treatment. A number of nations have criminal laws which would apply to torture/ill-treatment committed by anyone in any nation of the world. Hence, if U.S. perpetrators of torture visit those nations, the perpetrators can be prosecuted as a matter of national law and procedure. In addition, the U.S. has not agreed to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but there are 100 nations that have accepted the ICC Statute. The U.S. has tried to establish bilateral agreements with many nations to discourage them from referring U.S. officials for prosecution by the ICC. Nonetheless, the U.S. has not succeeded in persuading most European nations and some others to sign those bilateral agreements. One day, particularly if the U.S. ratifies the ICC Statute, it may be possible for the ICC to prosecute U.S. perpetrators of crimes against humanity such as torture.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Joseph:

When will formal charges be brought against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condelezza Rice? Should they all get the maximum penalty of life in prison should they be convicted? How much longer must the world wait until they are brought to justice?

David Weissbrodt answers:

You should look at my response to the previous question. It will take time to establish the mechanisms and do the investigations necessary to pursue such prosecutions insofar as warranted by the facts gathered. You will recall that it took years before General Pinochet was brought to justice and that process is still on-going. Perseverance and continual scrutiny is required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Elisabeth:

What Federal law provides remedy for impaired bodily function caused by State torture against a U.S. citizen in the USA? As a U.S. citizen, how could I prevent being rendered (extradited) to the State (in the USA) where the torture happened?

David Weissbrodt answers:

If an individual is injured by a state official, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act should provide remedies. I do not know enough about extradition laws in the United States to answer your question. At the international level I can say that the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment forbids extradition if there is a real risk that the individual will be subjected to torture in the receiving State. Previous torture would be relevant to showing the risk of further torture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by David B:

If laws have been broken should'nt the responsible parties be held accoutable, to the extent of such laws.

David Weissbrodt answers:

Yes, but laws need to be implemented. Sometimes it is necessary for ordinary individuals to insist upon such implementation. You can think of many situations in purely national or local law settings where laws are not enforced. It requires even more attention and perseverance to assure that international law is implemented.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by jay:

What does the use of torture by a government say about the health of its democratic government?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Use of torture by a government is a challenge to the democratic system. If residents of the nation employ their democratic rights to speak out and to participate in the government, there is a better chance that torture and other ill-treatment can be stopped.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Elizabeth:

What can we do? I've written my congressmen and, when I get replies, they assure me torture has never happened.

David Weissbrodt answers:

Keep writing to your members of Congress. I suggest that you begin to send evidence of torture, such as Amnesty International’s Supplementary Briefing to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, AI Index: AMR 512/061/2006 and you can also send the concluding comments of the Committee Against Torture. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/observations/usa2006.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jason Paul Marshall:

The United Nations is being used to aid in the misinformation of citizens of State Parties not in recognition of Article 22 of CAT. And, of course, being almost extorted regularly for their annual dues doesn't make it very easy for the United Nations to react to it. As of today May 22nd, 2006 Monday 09:00am PST USA, the http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf webpage which has been updated quarterly from 2001 up to the present date with still a false “*” star for the United States and Article 22! A citizen sent numerous emails and letters in addition to three expensive hand delivery trips to the United Nations in Geneva Switzerland without a single noteworthy response back where after 5 (five) years his “rights to know” and “due process right to know and duty to be responded back to” rights were violated. Here are some questions which need to be addressed.

David Weissbrodt answers:

Thanks for your multi-part question about Article 22 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. You can find the Convention at:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm

Article 22 states:

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.

The U.S. Government has not accepted the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive individual complaints under Article 22. You might, however, consider other procedures that are available, such as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. I realize that you asked several other related questions, but there are so many questions that I will have to turn to the next correspondent. I hope that you will understand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Anthony:

Will the inspection of U.S. Military torture include the testimony of documented released prisoners and those prisoners presently incarcerated at the Quantanimo Naval Base in Cuba and Bagram Air Base in Iraq?

David Weissbrodt answers:

The investigation of the use of torture by the U.S. military in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere should include testimony by detainees who are victims. Amnesty International has been able to obtain such testimonies in pursuing its investigations as indicated in Amnesty International’s Supplementary Briefing to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, AI Index: AMR 512/061/2006. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=ENGAMR510612006
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by John:

If the committee comes tot he conclusion that the United States did indeed torture what can be done about it,given that the Bush administration will probably just do what ever they please and claim its for the safety of the country.

David Weissbrodt answers:

The Committee Against Torture did, indeed, conclude that the U.S. needs to take a number of measures to stop torture and ill-treatment. I suggest that you look carefully at the Committee’s recommendations and work with Amnesty International to press the U.S. to follow the Committee’s important recommendations, including reporting back to the Committee as the Committee recommended. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/observations/usa2006.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jessica:

Would all the incidents of torture be considered a direct violation of the Geneva Convention?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Torture and ill-treatment during periods of armed conflict are covered by the Geneva Conventions. Ratifying governments have an obligation to bring to justice any perpetrator of torture/ill-treatment committed during international or other armed conflict.

Torture and ill-treatment outside of armed conflict are forbidden by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading or Treatment or Punishment as well as the U.S. Constitution (Due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Stephen:

I had tried to locate the UN report that I heard was to be issued, but could not. Thanks for including its URL in one of your answers.

David Weissbrodt answers:

You are welcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Lori:

In the 1990's I was involved in protests at Ft. Benning re: foreign soldiers and officials being brought there to be taught torture techiques, how far you could stress a body before you killed it, how to bring them back from near death, etc. I worked with Fr. Bourgeois' fight against this. I even talked to soldiers stationed at Ft. Benning at the time and they stated that they "disliked" what was going on at their base. SOAWHINSEC (school of the americas watch / western hemispere institue for security cooperation)continues with the FBI spying on their activities. The US is teaching torture. How is this allowed?

David Weissbrodt answers:

It is important for you and other concerned individuals to bring to public attention the use of and teaching of torture/ill-treatment wherever they may occur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by wim:

As a member of ACAT Nederland (Action of Christians for Abolition of Torture) I hate the dutch policy against children of rejected asylumseekers, born here and waiting for a permit to stay more than 5 years. Isn't that mental torture ?

David Weissbrodt answers:

I understand the suffering that the children of rejected asylum seekers may be feeling, but it is doubtful that such suffering qualifies as torture under the international definition. Just because the governmental policy does not involve torture does not make the policy correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Joe:

Who is ultimately responsible for the US use of tortue and degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees?

David Weissbrodt answers:

Individuals who engage directly in torture and ill-treatment are responsible, but so are those who gave the orders, who aided and abetted, and who failed to investigate torture and ill-treatment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jason Paul Marshall:

Just a Comment. It would be misleading to make anyone here believe that the " other procedures that are available, such as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights" because personal experience has proved that unless it's a requirement to respond such as Article 22, the State Party can continue not to respond.

David Weissbrodt answers:

You are correct that governments are not required to respond to the procedures identified, but governments, including the U.S., do respond regularly to complaints received because they are embarrassed by the information being issued by the the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Indeed, if a government fails to respond, it is assumed by some procedures that the complaints are correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Christopher:

How is it, that the U.S. Congress can pass a law (specifically the McCain Anti-torture amendment) and the President has the audacity to say that he'll be the one to interpret it in a way that he sees fit?

David Weissbrodt answers:

This present administration has been using signing statements which appear to undermine the content of legislation approved by the President. A representative of the administration (Mr. Bellinger) before the Committee Against Torture, however, said “It is a common misunderstanding we've heard about the President's signing statement. No, the statement does not establish an exception to commit torture. “Under our legal tradition, Presidents often issue such signing statements. The President has no intention to violate the Detainees Treatment Act under such provision.” For a further report on the U.S. presentation before the Committee, see:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat-us-report2006.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Dale R. "Zai" Fox:

It seems to me that so much of the current US administration's position on torture is based on a lack of clear criteria for determining when something should be called torture. WHile I have a lot of more detailed questions I would like to ask it seems my real question is "How can we improve our abilities to determine whether something should be considered torture and how can we improve our abilities to determine when such things are going on?"

David Weissbrodt answers:

There is quite a clear definition of torture in the Convention Against Torture.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm

Article 1: Article I

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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.

The Committee Against Torture, which is the authoritative source of interpretation for the Convention has issued a number of very helpful General Comments, decisions, and views which further interpret that definition.

It is now 1:15 p.m. I have been answering questions for more than two hours. I have enjoyed my conversation with so many interested participants. I am sorry that I could not respond to all questions. I hope that those of you who did not have your question answered will understand. Thanks so much for your interest in these important issues and I do hope that you will work with Amnesty International to help respond to the greatest human rights challenge of our day, that is, the use of torture and ill-treatment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ASK AMNESTY Home

The views expressed in the online discussions hosted on this site reflect the views of the discussion guests and do not necessarily reflect those of Amnesty International USA. Amnesty International USA does not necessarily sponsor, endorse, recommend or license content posted by third parties.