Talk:Torture

UN Convention

As a starting point for better defining torture, here is what the UN Convention Against Torture says: (taken from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html )

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.

extradite

At the moment the article says:

The mere act of handing somebody to another organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention.

But that is not what the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" says. What it says is:

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.

This means that if the person is handed over and it does not involve "expel", "return", or "extradite", then the treaty had not been broken, even if the "organization or country where it is foreseeable that torture would occur is regarded as a violation of the Torture Convention". This may not be in the sprit of the Treaty but it is within the wording.

For example if Country A has armed foreces with expertise which helps Country B to capture Mr X a citizen of country B, inside country B, if Mr X is then handed over to the tortures of country B, the treaty had not been broken because, the person had not been expel, return ("refouler") or extradite. Philip Baird Shearer

Execution

I would suggest to take out the whole reference re Execution. While death is obviously one of the outcomes of torture there appears to me a major difference between "death in captivity" and a formal execution based on a court judgement.

I would also suggest to put in the complete UN convention definition. It is not really a major debating point what constitutes torture. The definition is clear enough and courts around the world have also drawn the lines quite clearly. The controversy - as far as it stands - is more concerned with whether there are instances when torture would be a legitimate.

I will try and continue to update this section

Refdoc

I think the section on Execution is pertinent to the subject of torture. Many listed forms of execution and capital punishment bear much similarity to forms of torture and differ only in their intentions. In a sense execution is torture to a different degree. Whereas one might use electrocution in order to extract information or cause psychological or physical harm, another uses it to execute someone.

Ross

Geneva Conventions European -European Court of Human Rights

I'm not convinced about the definition being at all clear and uncontraversial - for instance, this news article (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/146787p-129619c.html) referenced on Current events contains the following statement:

The Geneva Conventions outlaw the torture and execution of prisoners. But rulings by the European Court of Human Rights found that sleep or food deprivation, sustained noise, forced standing and sensory deprivation (called "hooding") are not considered torture.

Now, I don't know how accurate that statement is, but I don't think anyone from Amnesty International would have quite the same definition, do you? The Geneva definition suffers because it uses the word severe to qualify pain or suffering, which is actually a very vague term.

- IMSoP 05:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are lots of qualifications on the Geneva Conventions. For a start it depends which treaty, and it depends on the person's status. I have altered the UK section to include details of the ECHR Ireland v. the UK ruling which is the one referred to.

I think that there needs to be a section on the Treaties which bind countries and a mention that many countries have included domestic law to prohabitions. Philip Baird Shearer 08:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Executions lethal injection

I'm writing about the inclusion of lethal injection as a "potentially painful method" here. I know there's a huge amount of debate on the issue, but I was unaware that people can feel pain when every nerve in their body has been depolarized. Pakaran . 02:26, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is it about topics related to torture and interrogation that villains described in detail are largely CIA and Israelies? Has there not been enough torture elsewhere? Or is this back to the pour dirt on the "hypocritical West" agenda while ignoring bigger crimes of the rest of the world? Watcher 10:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Then you should write to balance the articles. See NPOV for our policy on such things. -- The Anome 10:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

US

I've removed the following link: *The Guardian, Friday May 7, 2004: Torture as pornography, The pictures of American soldiers humiliating Iraqi detainees are reminiscent of sadomasochistic porn, says military historian Joanna Bourke. And we should not be surprised (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211411,00.html) While I think it's an article worth reading, I feel that it is more sort of an essayistic comment and too much centered around the particular Abu Ghraib incidents to be included here. regards, High on a tree 17:21, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place for an editorial on the "systematic use of torture by the united states". - Tεx τ urε 16:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just the fact that 3 major newspapers in the United States have obtained information regarding the legal basis asserted by the United States for use of torture. Fred Bauder 16:20, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. I dispute that this is the correct article for the information. - Tεx τ urε 16:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not US officially sanctioned torture

Officially sanctioned torture has occurred in the context of the U.S. led war on terrorism [1] where it is frequently held to be justified by necessity.

Tha article referenced in [1] above Washington Post: Torture Policy (cont'd) Monday, June 21, 2004; Page A18 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56753-2004Jun20.html?referrer=email) does not say that in US "Officially sanctioned torture has occurred". What the Americans have done is use simlar criteria to the UK in the early 1970s and tried to use as much physical force as possible without resorting to torture. The only international court ruling on this, is the one by the ECHR when it ruled against UK for The five (sensory deprivation) techniques and found the UK in breach of Article 3 in that the methods amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment but they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood.

This of course is no way binding on the US, but it is an indication of what lawers in international law thinks defines torture and from what the US administration seems to be saying is a similar legal bench mark which they use. This may not be what many people think of as ethical behaviour but it does mean that the US has not breached its treaty obligations and used torture. So as that source does not describe the US using torture "just" methods which verge on torture, I am going to alter it to point to the UK example. Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Europe

Fred had added "the Soviet Union and" in front of "Europe" in the Torture and confession section, but I didn't feel it made sense there. First of all, it was refering to Europe in the medieval and early modern (whatever that means) times, and the USSR wasn't around then. Secondly, the USSR is considered part of Eastern Europe, so it's already included in Europe. I totally agree that there's plenty of evidence that the USSR used heaping portions of torture. But that belongs in the Use of torture by governments section. I think the little Torture and confession section needs an update anyway, it hardly touches the subject and then goes off on a tangent about Europe, when this should be about "torture" in general. - Eisnel 10:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Use of torture in Europe on a mass scale, except perhaps in Nazi germany and allied fascist regimes which I am not expert on, did not not occur in Europe during the 20th century. In the Soviet Union, which relied almost exclusively on confessions for evidence and on denunciations of others to bring new suspects into the system, torture was used extensively despite its formal prohibition. With some exceptions the millions who were liquidated or entered into the gulag system were formally convicted in proceedings which relied on a signed confession. Why enormous amounts of police time was wasted on this exercise is somewhat of a mystery, but nevertheless, with dogged determination, those who entered the system were placed in holding cells and vigorously interrogated until that piece of paper was produced. Only then could the prisoners move on to the labor camps. Smart prisoners simply signed and moved on. Although in a few rare instances someone sucessfully resisted and was actually released it would be only after months of extreme pressure at this preliminary stage. In many if not most cases the suspects were innocent of what they were accused of, and in almost all cases the confessions produced elaborated in sometimes fantastic ways upon the crimes committed. There is a definite link between acceptance of confession as sufficient evidence for conviction and use of torture to obtain them. The inquisition could not operate in England because in those cases where innocents had no involvement with witchcraft they could not be convicted no matter how lurid a confession was obtained. Fred Bauder 15:42, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

You're new update concerning the Soviet Union works much better, the whole "medieval" thing was the only reason I stuck my nose in last time. =o) So the text you typed above, is that your own? If so, you should put more of that in the article. - Eisnel 16:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but probably it belongs in an article on confession or on the gulag or perhaps the Soviet legal system. Modern American practice now accepts confession and we are now seeing people freed on DNA evidence despite having confessed. Fred Bauder 17:09, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

reverted

I reverted changes by 208.178.23.220, I don't think boilerplate about people not condoning torture is an improvement over the previous version. BCoates 00:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Implications of para. 2 -- Intended?

The second paragraph seems to intentionally imply that torture is and will be practiced anyplace in the world as long as the authorities can arrange appearances to protect themselves from facing up to their crimes. I am not sure that the person who wrote that paragraph intended to make such a blanket condemnation of human nature (or at human nature as it is expressed in the halls of government). Nor am I yet sure that torture will inevitably be practiced in the U.S. providing only that the right face can be put upon the matter -- which seems to me to be the trust of this paragraph. If the writers and others who have worked on this article want to make such a strong claim, then I think it is incumbent upon them to contextualize their charges and also to provide substantiation in the form of scholarly citations, court records, etc. I hope that the U.S. has not fallen to this level of public immorality, but I fear that it has. The facts that I am aware of suggest that civil rights violations, including killing and torture, are visited upon U.S. citizens by governments, quasi-governmental organs (I'm thinking of militias), hate groups, etc. But they also indicate that higher authorities have successfully acted to redress injustices and terminate illegal practices when state and local governments have become corrupt, and that the activities of militias, hate groups, etc. are routinely fought against both by organs of government and by non-governmental organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law organization.

As it stands, the paragraphs mentioned have the quality of dark mutterings in the corner. As such, those who believe that governments are corrupt and evil will concur and those who trust government will selectively disattend to these charges. If there is anything provable to be said against any western governments (or other governments for that matter), then that should be said in the open so that it can by fairly challenged by anyone who does not accept the evidence or the reasoning behind the charges. P0M 07:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing some aspects of the article.

Moved treaty etc to "legal status of torture", medical etc to "aspects of torture", cleaner division of topics.
Separated effects of torture from historic use into its own small section (its important enough and distinct enough to deserve it).
Fixed the intro by referring to breach of the spirit of such treaties, to fix POM's concern about "dark mutterings" in the introduction. (The "2/3 of countries" statistic and information on illicit use, is moved to "use in modern times")
Re-summarised the GC treaties which were a bit hard to follow, into clear sections, one paragraph for each category.
Distinguishing medical torture, from medical effects and treatment of torture.

Last, can someone check my summary of the Geneva Conventions to ensure it's factually correct, since when looked at in detail the original wording was ambiguous at some points. FT2 12:56, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz

In his book "Why Terrorism Work", Dershowitz puts forward his argument fro the issuing of torture warrants by judges. It goes something like this:

1. There is a conceivable situation, the ticking-bomb terrorist situation, where a terror suspect knows that there is a terrorist attack imminent/bomb already in place, which if allowed to be carried out/go off will kill large numbers of people

2. In this case, law enforcement agencies around the WILL torture that suspect to get the information, regardless of if they are ina democracy or not

3. Is it better to let this happen "under the radar", or to have at least some level of judicial review and control over it?

In Dershowitz's view, the latter is preferable. Is it worth putting this into the article?

Circa 1800?

The Spanish Inquisition around 1800? Was it still around? Also, Napoleon invaded Spain in the early 1800s, and he would not have accepted torture (judicial torture had been abolished by the French Revolution). David.Monniaux 15:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Section ordering

The legal definition should come early in the article not towards the end because one has to define what torture is before describing it. For example it is necessary to define torture as "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".

If this is not done then the explanations of things like "stress and duress" and "Torture by proxy" and "Secrecy / publicity" are not in context and are not clearly explained. Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The section on the Geneva Convention is long-winded and irrelevant (since no context is established), and unlikely to be what the reader is looking for. This material should be moved to Geneva Convention, and a brief summary of it placed at the end of the Torture article. Legal claptrap is not the target information for the literal term "Torture". Specific instances, statistics, and methods are more likely to be what is sought. Jeeves 00:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without a clear definition of what torture is it is not possible to understand the current political opposition to torture based around violations of treaties. For example one can not understand why the US government uses the term "stress and duress" unless one has knowledge of the previous ICHR case brought by the Republic of Ireland against the UK and how that effected the drafting and interpretation of UNCAT. Just because you think it is long-winded and irrelevant does not mean that everyone does. It must come a quite a surprise to many people that under international law "stress and duress" techniques are not torture. Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also your (Jeeves) argument could be turned on its head if the information on torture is moved in to the Geneva conventions it could be argued that the commentary on torture it is not central to the GC so why not move it into the torture article. Further it covers four separate GC articles and splitting it over four articles is an inelegant solution --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disinhibition

Is it possible to find "disinhibition" in the Oxford English Dictionary or another general dictionary, or does it only occure in specialised medical dictionaries: disinhibition (http://psychology.a.dictonarypage.co.uk/disinhibition/)? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, the word is well known and used in normal speech. It is in two of my 'ordinary' dictionaries, and at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disinhibition) as well. -- FP 00:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

A quick seach with Google will show that it's definitely a word in common use, among some groups at the very least.

The Torture article may need to be changed in this regard because it may not react two different kinds of changes that may increase the frequency of a previously inhibited behavior. One way to increase the frequency of, e.g., skinny dipping, is to reduce the sensitivity of the swimmer to negative evaluations given by people who have the status of authority figures (people who count) in his/her society. Another way to increase the frequency of such activity is to change the context in which the behavior occurs (without doing anything to change the conditioned status of the individual). For instance, one might move the prospective skinny dippers to an area where they would be protected from observation by police, nosy neighbors, priests and pastors, etc.

The extreme behavior of Japanese troops during World War II was at variance with the fact that the same individuals would have normally been under very tight social control mitigating against anti-social acts. Japanese civil society was in general a very safe and stable environment for individuals. Japanese people did not behave toward each other as they behaved toward captured enemy soldiers in China, southeast Asia, etc. The Japanese soldiers were not subjected to any known conditioning to reduce their inhibitions against doing violence to others. Instead, the researchers who have studied the phenomenon concluded, the inhibiting factors were inherent in the social matrix in which they existed while in Japan. When that social matrix was replaced, when they were individuals operating in foreign countries and dealing with people who were not any part of a violence-inhibiting matrix, then there were virtually no controls inhibiting them from cruel acts. In other words, violent acts were never controlled by feelings of guilt or shame for the acts per se, but were only controled by social strictures against certain behaviors directed toward members of the social organizations of which one was a part.

The article certainly does not need to go into a discussion of these acts of torture and abuse that occured around 60 years ago, but it probably should take note of the possibility that it is one thing to recondition a prison worker so that s/he feels that it o.k. to torture any human being or at least any human being who becomes a prison inmate, and another thing to present a prison worker with an individual who is somehow defined in his/her mind (perhaps due to another kind of conditioning) as not being a human being and therefore not meriting the compassion ordinarily to be directed toward conspecifics. P0M 01:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are making a very good point here and I agree that "as not being [perceived] as human being" ought to be included as well as the reconditioning of prison workers. Although human being aspect is somewhat disproved by the argument put forward by Heinrich Himmler that gassing helped to reduce the stress of by the SS in killing so many Jews (IE gassing was introduced, not to make the death of Jews more humane for the victims but more humane for the perpetrators)[1] (http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/himmler.htm) and his words in his notorious "Posen speech"[2] (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/himmler-heinrich/posen/oct-04-43/ausrottung-transl-nizkor.html) on October 4, 1943.

This would suggest that even when a person sees another person as "sub-human", that killing them or torturing them may still be an unpleasent task for many people. Just as many people find the killing large animals harder to reconcile than killing small ones. Many people consider that mistreating horses, dogs and cats to be worse than mistreating rats or insects, although they can not explain it in a moral context, they still have an empathy towards larger animals. Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legalized torture

A recent change says that torture is legal in Israel. Such claims should be provided with citations to specific laws. P0M 14:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times#Israel article where it's covered better. // Liftarn

See this. http://62.90.71.124/files_eng/94/000/051/a09/94051000.a09.HTM . Israel has made torture - even moderate physical pressure - illegal.

Sine I doen't speak fluently legalese please point me to the relevant section. I find "Petitioners challenge the legality of these methods." and "Petition denied." that makes it sound like they have upheld the use of torture. Is a GSS investigator authorized to employ physical means in order to obtain this information? The state answers in the affirmative. The use of physical means should not constitute a criminal offence, and their use should be sanctioned, according to the state, by the “necessity” defense. // Liftarn

"Held: The Court held that the GSS did not have the authority employ certain methods challenged by the petitioners. The Court also held that the “necessity defense,” found in the Israeli Penal Law, could serve to ex ante allow GSS investigators to employ such interrogation practices. The Court's decision did not negate the possibility that the “necessity defense” would be available post factum to GSS investigators—either in the choice made by the Attorney-General in deciding whether to prosecute, or according to the discretion of the court if criminal charges are brought were brought against them." This is the court's own summary (it is very early on in the decision). It says (simplified) [note GSS is Israel Internal Security Service - like MI5 or the FBI]: The GSS cannot apply physical pressure to prisoners - let alone torture them - for whatever reason. The stuff about "necessary defense" is basically saying that Israeli law - technically - allows it; however this Court (the Supreme Court) thinks it is unconstitutional. Given, though, that a GSS operative tried for torture could claim it is not against the law, the Court says it cannot rule out the possibility s/he would get off in a criminal court. The Supreme COurt is effectively saying torture is wrong, physical pressure is wrong, and the law should be changed in order to stop anyone getting out of punishment on a legal loophole. --Batmanand 20:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Torture in recent times

I have moved the growing information on specific countries into the Uses of torture in recent times article which is in line with the original move of country information from this article into that sub-article. This keeps controversial POVs in the one sub-article and saves the spaghetti linking as was starting to happen with the section on Israel. The Soviet Union information should probably be moved from this article/section into TiRT as well.... --Philip Baird Shearer 17:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A question of legalising torture today

Ethical arguments regarding torture see section here in new article.

The problem with this section is that who is it supposed to address? If it is only for an internal US audience then it should be moved into a US section perhaps in Uses of torture in recent times. But given that the US has signed various treaties which outlaw torture how does Bagaric suggest that the US annul its treaty obligations? Philip Baird Shearer

Why give prominence to this paper when it does not effect the legal status of torture either inside the US or internationally? Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW. "Victorian" is not the best word to use given its common usage. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about "victorian" easily fixed to "from Victoria, Australia." I feel there is a place on this article for the question of legalising torture today, and the example I gave was just one of many. It is quite frightening that there are people out there, probably in every country, who feel torture should be legalised. If it isn't addressed in this article, then it should at least have its own article that is linked under "see also". --Silversmith 13:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is is supposed to address? Well, I'd say it is fairly clear that it is an attempt to start to draft a section dealing with the rights and wrongs of torture. The current article deals mainly with technical, historical and legalistic aspects of torture. It doesn't deal with the thorny and very topical question of whether torture is good/bad/necessary etc. In fact, it comes out and says stuff like "Torture is an extreme violation of human rights", which is strictly speaking POV (I'm against torture, but I am capable of seeing that this is an opinion of mine, and not universally shared).

I'd actually rather not touch upon this disgusting subject, and just leave the article in a state that unquestioningly supports my POV. However, if we're going to do a good job of writing an encyclopaedia, I suppose we should cover this controversial area. Silversmith therefore is doing the right thing by trying to get the ball rolling. The only question is, should we make it a section of this article, or alternatively start a separate article called something like Rights and wrongs of torture, Ethical and legal arguments regarding torture, Legalisation of torture, etc.

Please note that the quality of Silversmith's first draft is not the issue when looking into the question of whether such a section/article should exist. Editing will obviously follow. — Chameleon 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I say move it into another article, because it is loaded with POVs. Don't use the word "legal" in the title as that is covered in this article. I would suggest Ethical arguments regarding torture. The reason for creating Uses of torture in recent times was for similar reasons and it seems to have worked out quite well. At first I thought about qualifying the title with "recent times", but it would probably grow to be an article about the Ethical arguments regarding torture in diffrent ages.

BTW it is not a POV to state that "Torture is an extreme violation of human rights" because as the human rights article points out "These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments". If you follow that link to ihri it states: "and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law." As torture is covered by several legally binding instruments, (see the article) torture is an extreame violation of human rights. Philip Baird Shearer 11:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The human rights article might say that, but the article in question does not. It gives no indication that "human rights" is code for "human rights as defined by international treaties", which are not self-evidently the same thing (even if the agreements had never been signed, torture would still be a terrible crime in the opinion of humanitarians). — Chameleon 12:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

American torture

Alleged detention and interrogation practices The following are some of the detention or interrogation practices that are alleged to have been authorized or used by the USA during the "war on terror". Some appear to have been tailored to specific cultural or religious sensitivities of the detainees, thereby introducing a discriminatory element to the abuse. Techniques are often used in combination. Neither gender nor age has offered protection. Children, the elderly, women and men are reported to have been among the subjects of torture or ill-treatment. This list does not claim to be exhaustive.

         o Abduction
         o Barbed wire, forced to walk barefoot on
         o Blindfolding
         o "Burking" – hand over detainee’s mouth/nose to prevent breathing
         o Cell extraction, brutal/punitive use of
         o Chemical/pepper spray, misuse of
         o Cigarette burns
         o Claustrophia-inducing techniques, e.g. tied headfirst in sleeping bag, shut in lockers
         o Death threats
         o Dietary manipulation
         o Dogs used to threaten and intimidate
         o Dousing in cold water
         o Electric shocks, threats of electric shocks
         o Exposure to weather and temperature extremes, especially via air-conditioning
         o Flags, wrapped in Israeli or US flags during or prior to interrogation
         o Food and water deprivation
         o Forced shaving, ie of head, body or facial hair
         o Forcible injections, including with unidentified substances
         o Ground, forced to lie on bare ground while agents stand on back or back of legs
         o Hooding
         o Hostage-taking, i.e. individuals detained to force surrender of relatives
         o Humiliation, eg forced crawling, forced to make animal noises, being urinated upon.
         o Immersion in water to induce perception of drowning
         o Incommunicado detention
         o Induced perception of suffocation or asyphxiation
         o Light deprivation
         o Loud music, noise, yelling
         o Mock execution
         o Photography and videoing as humiliation
         o Physical assault, eg punching, kicking, beatings with hands, hose, batons, guns, etc
         o Physical exercise to the point of exhaustion, e.g. "ups and downs", carrying rocks
         o Piling, i.e. detainee is sat on or jumped on by one or more people ("dog/pig pile")
         o Prolonged interrogations, eg 20 hours
         o Racial and religious taunts, humiliation
         o Relatives, denial of access to, excessive censorship of communications with
         o Religious intolerance, eg disrespect for Koran, religious rituals
         o Secret detention
         o Secret transfer
         o Sensory deprivation
         o Sexual humiliation
         o Sexual assault
         o Shackles and handcuffs, excessive and cruel use of. Includes "short shackling"
         o Sleep adjustment
         o Sleep deprivation
         o Solitary confinement for prolonged periods, eg months or more than a year
         o Stress positions, eg prolonged forced kneeling and standing
         o Stripping, nudity, excessive or humiliating use of
         o Strip searches, excessive or humiliating use of
         o Strobe lighting
         o Suspension, with use of handcuffs/shackles
         o Threat of rape
         o Threats of reprisals against relatives
         o Threat of transfer to third country to inspire fear of torture or death
         o Threat of transfer to Guantánamo
         o Threats of torture or ill-treatment
         o Twenty-four hour bright lighting
         o Withdrawal of "comfort items", including religious items
         o Withholding of information, e.g. not telling detainee where he is
         o Withholding of medication
         o Withholding of toilet facilities, leading to defecation and urination in clothing

[3] (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005)

4.250.168.145 16:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Whose opinion is this?

"so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it has not broken its treaty obligations.

Whose opinion is this? Is there a reference for it? It would seem to me that if any government is able to "authorise" (give authority for) anything in a certain territory, then it has de-facto jurisdiction.

Pmurray bigpond.com 05:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Let us suppose there is a country (A) which has not signed the UN torture treaty, (about half the countries in the world have not), or have not passed laws to enforce it. If another country (B) which has signed the torture treaty, and has domestic law which enforce it, and B's government has its own government operatives in country A it can authorise its employees to use "inhuman or degrading treatment" without breaking its treaty obligations because the territory is not under its jurisdiction. Because Article 2 says "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." Article 3 says " 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." Article 16 says "Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I". So if country B has a person they wish to interrogate they can extradite a person to a country which allows "inhuman or degrading treatment" but not torture without breaking its treaty obligation, and once there its operatives can use "inhuman or degrading treatment" eg sensory deprivation without it breaking Article 2, 3, or 16. Brutal and not within the spirit of the treaty, but legally within treaty obligations. Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

I have removed many of the "they"s which are ungrammatical.

For other future editors/writers, please note that "they" should have a plural antecedent. Thus, something like "a person exercises their democratic right by voting" is ungrammatical.

Rintrah

It is customary to put new talk sections at the bottom of a talk page. So I have moved it here.

"A person exercise its democratic right by voting" my be grammatically correct but is not normally used. I think it is acceptable to use their in this context as it removes gender from the sentence, is not convoluted, and is in common usage.

Specifically your changes imply that for war crimes to be committed there must be more than one person involved. EG:

Before you change:Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes...
After:Once persons in an international armed conflict have been found guilty of war crimes...

If you wish to replace they with "he, or she," then although it is clumsy and stilted, I will not object. EG:

Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes, or they are not protected by GCIV because of some other exemption, they no longer have the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

with

Once a person in an international armed conflict, has been found guilty of war crimes, or she, or he, is not protected by GCIV because of some other exemption, he, or she, no longer has the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never use "it" to describe a human being. The sentence is improved in the form "people exercise their democratic right by voting". The whole issue of gender is side-stepped by pluralising the subject of the sentence.

Would you object to this amendment: "A person who is found guilty of war crimes, or is not protected by GCIV becuase of some other expemption, is not protected by GCIV because the Geneva Convention no longer protects that individual"?

I prefer convoluted sentences to syntatically ugly ones (i.e. using "they" to describe one person). Rintrah 13:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about:

A person, who is found guilty of war crimes in an international armed conflict, or is not protected by GCIV because of some other expemption, is no longer protected by the Geneva Conventions.

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That satisfies me. :) Rintrah 01:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Torture"