Gonzales: Torture treaty doesn't bar 'cruel, inhuman' tactics

[struggle4progress]

Posted on Tue, Jan. 25, 2005

WASHINGTON - Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces ... (H)e said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere ... (H)e refused to answer questions from senators about whether interrogation tactics witnessed by FBI agents were unlawful ... Cal Jillson, a constitutional scholar who's followed the careers of Gonzales and Bush since they were in Texas, said Gonzales was following basic Bush administration policy: Don't admit mistakes or re-evaluate decisions ...

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/10732627.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. So by those standards, the Nazis and Japanese were doing the right thing

by torturing and killing resistance fighters in the occupied countries because they weren't citizens of Germany or Japan? :puke:

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Is Gonzales reading the same document I am?

I've read Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Somehow, I get the idea that it prohibits exactly what Mr. Gonzales says it doesn't prohibit.

One of us can't read, and I don't think its me. If Mr. Gonzales can't read, he shouldn't be Attorney General.

[gottaB]

3. There's also the US Constitution

Which the Senate considered when it ratified the treaty:

The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

etc...

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm

I don't see an out in there. The Senate ratified the treaty with the understanding that it would be consitent with our laws and values. And when I look at the Senate's Reservation II.1.a, it's clear that the torture policy is in violation.

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

US criminal law is also very clear about the definition of torture. Here is the definition of title 18, Section 113C:

As used in this chapter -

(1) ''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) ''severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) ''United States'' includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html

And then there is the matter of war crimes, which are covered by US law (The War Crimes Act of 1996): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/118/sections/section%5F2441.html

This idea that the Geneva Conventions are quaint, I don't know where exactly it comes from, but it is not supported by US law. Wishing does not make it so, nor does executive privilege.