The Convention Against Torture
Published by marco on
The Convention Against Torture (CAT) is an American law passed during the Reagan administration. It extends the provisions to which America was already bound as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.[1] Even if we assume—as so many of the leading light’s of America’s intellectual elite and media have already done—that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to America, we have to acknowledge our own laws, don’t we? We can assume that a 21st-century America doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Geneva Conventions[2] simply by looking at our conduct in nearly all of our wars—from Vietnam through Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan—vis-a-vis civilians, all completely and utterly verboten by the fourth convention governing treatment of non-combatants. Americans may not get prosecuted for it, but that doesn’t make it legal. Similarly, America’s arguments that it doesn’t torture is on that same level as that of a man claiming that he didn’t actual cheat on his wife because he wasn’t in love with the woman with whom he purportedly cheated. It was only sex, not love-making and hence not cheating. You do see, don’t you?
But back to the CAT, which is available in full with Reagan’s own introductory comments at U.S. signs UN convention against torture (bnet). The article Ronald Reagan: vengeful, score-settling, Hard Left ideologue by Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) has a pretty good overview, but here are the salient highlights in Reagan’s own words:
“The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called “universal jurisdiction.” Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
It’s easy to imagine Reagan saying that and signing it without ever imagining that it could actually be applied to the U.S. at any point in the future. Well, lo and behold, here we are at the end of the naughts[3] and it looks like Spain expects us to follow our own laws. It’s right there in black and white: signatories to the Convention against Torture are to allow extradition of their torturers if they are unwilling to prosecute them themselves. Clear as day. No wonder it took Congress years to ratify this sucker; they must have either seen the implications better or had fewer principles than good old Ronny.
Next up on the chopping block—as it were—is the absolutely hugely popular canard that we have an option as to whether we should prosecute torturers. This one is very popular across the political spectrum and evinces a complete and utter disregard for the law. Once again, from the text of the CAT:
“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. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.”
If you can read English, you now know that the U.S. has an obligation to pursue prosecution[4] of everyone involved in torture[5], from the CIA operatives who executed these despicable acts to the lawyers who tried to finagle the definition of torture to the DOD and State Department members who authorized and implemented it. If we can’t do it, then we have to let Spain have a crack at it. Greenwald’s analysis is very interesting in that he points out how in twenty short years, the point of view expressed in the CAT went from one that could be espoused by one of the most conservative presidents in U.S. history to one that is now identified with an extreme left agenda. It’s as if calling for adherence to the law and justice is deemed Marxist in this day and age.
What it boils down to is that as soon as the wrong people would get prosecuted for crimes, those crimes are magically no longer illegal. The real problem is that there are at least two separate classes in America and the same laws do not apply for everyone. Hell, think of how shit-out-of-luck you’d be if you, as a member of the wrong class, were to be caught torturing a cat or dog. You’d go to jail for a nice long time. The blindingly stupid re-hashed discussions of torture are simply about the age-old legalization of crimes of the king. As Nixon himself said, “if the President does it, it’s not illegal”. Condi Rice recently pulled out this old chestnut again[6], paraphrasing it thusly: “The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
Well, isn’t that nice and neat. Don’t you wish that Santa Bush would drop down your chimney and grant you preëmptive absolution for any potential crimes you might commit? This is utter bullshit; it has nothing to do with the laws of the U.S. and everything to do with the super-class of America getting to do whatever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants and getting us to cheer them all the way.
[1]
An interesting commentary on the conventions from Wikipedia:
“Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.“ from the commentaries by Jean Pictet (ed.)”
The international interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in no way allows for the legalistic gray area the Bush administration tried to create with the designation “enemy combatant”. Anytime somebody tries to argue for wiggle-room in the Geneva Conventions, they are really supporting yet another broken treaty promise on the part of the U.S.
↩[2] They speak French there, don’t they?↩
[3] It’s the only reasonable way I’ve found of describing this decade. The next one will be called the teens, which will also be awkward. Once we get to the 20s, thing will be all straightened our again.↩
[4]
Also conveniently defined in the CAT—explicitly not leaving it up to the interpretation of Bush or any other administration official:
↩“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.”
[5] Note that this does not impose any sentencing requirements; the law only calls for prosecution and let the chips fall where they may. But torture is illegal and even torturers with the best intentions have broken the law. If they can prove in court that their torture had massively positive benefits, then they can throw themselves at the mercy of the court.↩