Talk:Uses of torture in recent times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

[edit] Bias Against the U.S.

You keep posting these biased reports about the use of torture within countries and cultures that don't tolerate it. But you won't allow any reports on countries that use it every day, such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Niger, etc...

You are a biased fool.

Epsilon3 02:17, 18 December 2004 (UTC)

New to this article, and noted. In fact the article has encyclopedic potential but was heavily slanted both in terms of geography (as stated above) and organisation (split into "democratic" and "non democratic"). It also had a somewhat POV introduction which didnt set out the background too well.

Ive had a go at these, the lack of info on other countries will doubtless cause edit wars but remember, NPOV means show ALL sides and let the reader decide. So any countries missing, just add them. FT2 04:01, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Record in case needed

I have just had a personal attack posted by User:162.97.100.170 signed "Epsilon3" on my talk page, following the expansion on this article noted above. Link here [1]. This is apparently the same user as vandalised this article [2] a couple of days ago, and has had vandalism reverted 4 times already today (Dec.18 2004, see article history). Should this user cause further trouble please feel free to inform me or to cite this as evidence to any request for comment, mediation or arbitration. He may also be the same as User:68.206.32.245 (see [3]). FT2 18:38, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in Progress report

See WP:VIP for Dec.18 2004

For the record, I also gather a ban was also fixed either by user:Hadal or User:Schneelocke on this vandal. FT2 19:13, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham six

Birmingham pub bombing Birmingham pub bombing#Charges against police and prison officers
The Birmingham six had the most obvious signs of maltreatment when seem in public.
The court of appeal ruled the confessions worthless.
The six alleged torture.
No one has been found guilty of torturing the six, BUT the legal use of issue estoppel makes this of little value in deciding if torture was or was not used.
If torture was used, there is no evidence at all that HMG condoned it.
If torture was used, then it is a classic case of why torture is discredited as a method, because the confession so obtained can not be trusted and this increases the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, if the Jury is not directed by the Judge to consider that a confession was extracted under torture and may not be relied upon. Philip Baird Shearer 16:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old version: "however if they were, it was not authorised by the British government, and it would show how unreliable information extrated by torture can be."

New version: "The British government denied this was the case, or that torture would have been authorised."

Criticisms of old version. The old version makes 2 POV assertions:

That "if anything happened it wasn't authorised". But clearly if something did happen, some official of authority authorised it. So there is an inherent POV here, "if anything happened it wasn't supposed to have happened". The article takes the British Govt POV on it. I don't think thats appropriate, either to imply by doubt whether or not torture took place, or that if it did, it was unauthorised. We don't know either of these authoritatively.
The article then draws a conclusion, "if they were tortured it shows how worthless torture is for confessions". Again whilst that may be true, it implies a POV in the specific case of the Birmingham 6. That is not a lesson of the B'6, because it generalises heavily, and assumes they were tortured (if they werent then no lesson on the value of torture confessions could logically be drawn).

By contrast, the new version covers the ground which should be covered - namely, that the govt denied that torture was used (which is more NPOV than implying doubt ourselves), or authorised. It does not form an opinion that "the lesson of the Birmingham 6 is that if torture was used it proves it was worthless", because we don't know if it was used.

If we are that sure of our facts, then the old version should say "A court found they were tortured, and decided that the confessions were worthless", which is also NPOV, and not hedge around by saying "If they were...".

In June 1975 fourteen prison officers were charged with varying degrees of assault but were found not guilty. In 1977 the six men pressed charges against the West Midlands police; these charges were dismissed under issue estoppel.... New evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence, the discrediting of both the confessions and the 1975 forensic evidence led to the Crown offering no case against the men. The courts never in your words "found they were tortured". Philip Baird Shearer

For these reasons I have reverted to the NPOV wording on this issue. FT2 10:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

"The British government denied this was the case". In Britain thanks to the independence of the courts, the government does not to decide if a criminal act of torture was performed on the Birmingham 6, the English courts do that. But because of Issue Estoppel the case is to use a Scottish legal expression is "not proven". Hence the wording "however if they were". This is because you may think they were, I may think they, but it has not been proven. Your wording implies that the government has a constitutional ability to decide on this issue it does not. If you have a source where a British minister made such a statment please post it here.

I would argue that as British ministers can not confirm or deny that torture took place, so they never needed to state "that torture would [not] have been authorised". If you have a source where a miniter says this then please post it.

"however if they were", "it was not authorised by the British government" is a statement of fact. I have never seen a document or a witness statement presented to the courts, or to a public inquiry, which say that any illegal interrogation methods were authorised by a higher authority than those who were accused of torture. If you have such a source then please post it here and we can change the wording and quote the source.

If they were tortured ... "it would show how unreliable information extracted by torture can be." is true because they were innocent and it was the confessions which was a major contributor to the jury finding them guilty.

I will put back the original statment and if after my explanation you are still not happy perhpase we could use a bland statment like this one: "After two trials and several appeals to higher courts, no one was ever found guilt of torture to back up the allegations." Philip Baird Shearer 23:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have left your approach, with minor tweaks to wording which casts it slightly cleaner (to my mind). Any better? FT2 12:57, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

If this was the case, it appears not to have been officially authorised by the British government, and shows the unreliable nature of information extracted by torture.

It second clause has a problem because there is no evidence that it was unofficially authorised either.
I have problems with the last clause as you have it at the moment thought because it reads that torture did take place, It has to be more conditional.

How about: If they were, it appears not to have been authorised by the British government and it would show the unreliable nature of information extracted by torture.

If it is written like this one can break it into two sentences.

If they were, it appears not to have been authorised by the British government.

if they were, it would show the unreliable nature of information extracted by torture

Which I think is a better construction than the current one. As we are not miles apart I have not changed the current wording and look forward to you thoughts on my proposed wording. Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you have not replied I am replacing you text with my tweeks. Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

...However, it has been used throughout history, and, despite its prohibition, it is still used by many governments.

Realistically, torture has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today.

FT2 it seems to me that the two sentences say the same thing. Is there any way you can combine them? Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Try that. Edit it if its not perfect :) FT2 04:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

done ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, I really like intros which are short and to the point, that provide concise overview about the subject of an article. I strive for one paragraph of three to four sentences. Hence, I have pruned the intro along these lines.

Since this article is ancillary to the article [[[torture]], we don't need to cover ground best covered there, especially in the intro. So, we don't really need to define torture, excerpt perhaps parenthetically. Some of the other information belongs either in the body of the text or in the parent article.

A couple of specific points:

I deleted this cumbsome, largely redundant sentence: :Realistically, torture has been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states it remains so (unofficially and when expedient and desired) today.

And, please, let's avoid these kinds of weasly expressions unless absolutely necessary:

to use techniques which appear to be a form of torture

-- Viajero 15:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

I feel the treatment of Israel is unfair. Firstly, it does not even mention the landmark 1999 Supreme Court ruling (http://62.90.71.124/files_eng/94/000/051/a09/94051000.a09.HTM) that all torture - even moderate physical pressure - is illegal. This makes Israel the ONLY country in the world to have outlawed any form of physical violence in a non-military setting. To say the least, this is impressive. Please can people read the Supreme Court ruling, and then decide how to incorporate it into the article. Batmanand 17:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You said that "Israeli law - technically - allows it". Thus it's not illegal. // Liftarn

I assume you are referring to my discussion of the Supreme Court ruling on the Torture talk page. When I say technically allows it, I mean that there is a clause in an Israeli Law that basically says there is a legal defense called the "necessary defense". This is true of just about every country in the world. For example, if I am a fire-arms trained police officer, and I shoot a man who is carrying a piece of wood because I thought at the time that his action would harm me and others, I can use the "necessary defense" to say it was necessary, in that situation, from my viewpoint, to shoot him; even though shooting unarmed people is illegal. Torture, or even moderate physical pressure, are not legal in Israel. However, there are legal defenses for those who could be tried for them. --Batmanand 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Batmanand, your wording and lack of any recognition of the long history of torture in Israel above smacks of the logic of an apologist for Israeli military tactics, just good news talking points with no background. You speak of a 1999 ruling as though that erases decades of state sanctioned torture? Let's visit the "night of the broken clubs", Nablus, January 20, 1988, a well documented case of the Israeli government ordering soldiers to maim Arab civilians of both sexes and any age, at random, simply to terrorize the populace. Yehuda Meir, at one time one of the highest ranking officers in the IDF, has been tape-recorded jovially speaking about that night and of many other instances of the various acts of torture committed under his watch. Yet Judge Advocate General Strashnow, a man who oversaw hundreds of cases of alleged torture by the Israeli military, immediately dismissed this case, as he did nearly every single one, apparently with no real review whatsoever. This was condemned not only by HRW and the UN, but Israels own ACRI. They took the case to the Supreme Court, who, in an unprecedented act at the time, not only took the case; they also forced the civilian prosecutor to file charges, who had until then, despite his own "investigation", supported Strashnows ruling. Despite Herculean efforts by the IDF to derail the investigation and proceedings, Strashnow was eventually ordered to court marshal Meir, in what was intended by the court to be a recognition of the action that night and lead to further indictments. Meir was subsequently slapped on the wrist by JAG Strashnow, and despite Judge Levin of the high courts written position that "everyone involved" should be penalized, the IDF made sure no one else was ever indicted. While google should give you hundreds of references for this incident, I will suggest "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People", John Conroy, 2000.

I use this example because it was the first time Israeli courts tried to do anything about its rampant government sanctioned torture. Now, I think instead of writing another paragraph to illustrate a similar example that has occurred since 1988, I'll let any interested souls look for themselves to find the dozens of documented cases that are out there. Lastly, I'm not trying to argue Israel is any worse than, say, the U.S, the U.K, Algeria, various gulf states, Syria, North Korea, etc., etc., etc...I actually wouldn't try to "rate" any government an a "torture scale". They're all sickening. My response isn't intended to demonize Israel. I'm saying don't be so damn pious, and do enough research to realize Israel's no different than all the rest. KVND 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that torture is also illegal in China.--Streona (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel changes

I made some changes based on your comments Batmanand, it did look a bit unbalanced after I read your post. Hope you find it better now.

TonyClarke 22:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - the article is now better from this point of view. It is still biased against democracies, but I think this is inevitable, for the simple reason that they have the most infomation coming out of them! --Batmanand 20:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So biased it's barely useful

While I take Batmanand's point about lack of info, this article is so slanted it seems hardly worth bothering with. There are paragraphs on the Birmingham 6 (even though there doesn't seem to be any evidence of torture) but nothing on North Korea, Iraq, etc. Surely whoever created this article could have found evidence, for example, on Argentina in the 70s or 80s, or Guatemala. It's not as if this information isn't out there. In fact the UK section is particularly strange - is the 1977 case really eligible? After all, it was ruled not to be torture. As for Bread Basket, does that really qualify? Degrading treatment almost certainly, but torture? JW 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Sentence

"This practice is seen as ironic, given America's strong emphasis on the values of freedom and self-determination." I think this sentence was beyond a reasonable amount of POV. Its not wikipedia's job to decide what is and what isn't ironic. Frederick12 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Expansion

yes, the US section was long, but it focused on individual cases in the last three years, when a pattern of domestic torture exists. it's about time to make this a separate article and condense the description here.--Carwil 19:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed pending sourcing and verification

I took out the following text

Western democracies tend to have fewer but far higher profile cases, compared to more numerous, lower profile cases in other countries, which introduces a significant element of geographic bias in reporting.

because the weight of evidence of systematic torture in prisons in the US, immigration detention facilities in various Western democracies, against political prisoners in Spain and Italy... is quite overwhelming. They are neither consistently high profile, nor infrequently numerous (see the prison torture additions I made to the United States). It's probably accurate to say that majority groups in Western democracies have an expectation of living free from torture which their counterparts in authoritarian states do not. I realize this was an attempt to overcome reporting bias, but it carries its own internal bias.--Carwil 07:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Domestic Police and Prisons

The US is a very ligitious society. If there is torture in by US police and prison service officers then there will be lots of court cases which can be quoted as proof of this. There is no need to use blog sites as sources of alleged torture.

Torture: "does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." This puts the whole question of Supermax prisons using torture into question. Are there any court cases which confirm that torture is taking place?

Rape unless "intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession..." is not torture. Even if this rape "were done for purposes as obtaining from her or a third person information or a confession", a court would have to decide if the rape inflicted such pain or suffering that it constituted torture. Are there any court cases which confirm that rape has been used by the Police or Prison staff to torture anyone? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Information and confession are two of the reasons for torture, punishment is the third.

On the legal status of rape as a form of torture, see ALRC:Recognition of rape by State-officials as torture.

See Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-95-14 (2000) ICTY 4 (3 March 2000) (Appeal) - a stomach churning case. The description and the judgement makes a clear distincion between rape and torture eg:

"[t]he particular forms of unlawful act (murder, enslavement, deportation, torture , rape, imprisonment etc.) are less crucial to the definition than the factors of scale and deliberate policy, as well as in their being targeted against the civilian population in whole or in part"

So I am not sure where the ALRC gets "and by recognizing rape as a crime against humanity and as torture". Yes to the CAH, but I do not see in that case the direct link between rape and torture which is made in the ALRC article. Perhapse you would like to look through it case and direct me to the clause. The AYDIN v TURKEY, Judgment of the ECtHR, 25 September 1997 IIHRL 111 (25 September 1997). In this case rape along with a beating was part of an interrogation and quite rightly included by the court as part of a torture session. This does not mean though that all rape is torture. As Amnesty International submits in the court case " C. Submissions of Amnesty International:...noted that the rape of a female detainee by an agent of the State for purposes such as the extraction of information or confessions or the humiliation, punishment or intimidation of the victim was considered to be an act of torture under current interpretations of international human rights standards" Or put another way to be torture, the rape must be coupled with the motives of the perpetrator expressed in UNCAT Article 1 "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..." --Philip Baird Shearer 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Amnesty International claims:

Many acts of sexual violence - including rape, gang rape, abduction and sexual slavery, forced marriage, forced pregnancy, forced maternity, and sexual mutilation - constitute torture under customary international law. These acts are considered war crimes [in the context of war] and constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention.[4]

Rape in a war is a war crime and mass rape may be a crime against humanity, but a rape is not torture unless "intentionally inflicted... (See above) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Supermax units are fairly unique to the US, and law has not settled on their status as torture. However, numerous rights advocates have described them as torture, or as "inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment" which is also prohibited under the torture convention. See this briefing to the UN Committee Against Torture by Amnesty International:

Amnesty International believes that conditions in many US supermax facilities are far more punitive than is required for legitimate security purposes and constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of international standards.(42) ...

Although a few courts have ordered changes to some aspects of the operation of some units, no court to date has found that long-term supermax confinement per se violates the US Constitution. In general the US courts have given broad leeway to states to impose harsh conditions of segregated custody on security grounds.

This does not make the conditions torture --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditions in US supermax units have, however, been criticized by international bodies, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Human Rights Committee.(46) Similar conditions elsewhere have also been found to violate the international prohibition of torture or ill-treatment. (47) In its concluding observations on the initial report of the USA under the ICCPR in March 1995, the Human Rights Committee recommended that the US Government should scrutinize conditions in maximum security prisons with a view to guaranteeing that persons deprived of their liberty be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and implementing the UN Standard Minimum Rules....(48) However, no such scrutiny has taken place, and the federal government has continued to operate units in the federal system and fund the building of some state supermax facilities.(49)

Ill-treatment and torture are two differnt things. There is nothing there which says that the conditions amount to torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(46) E/CN.4/1999/61 Report of the SR on torture, 12.01.99.United States of America, 739, 740; and CCPR/C/79/Add 50: “..The Committee is particularly concerned at the conditions of detention in certain maximum security prisons which are incompatible with article 10 of the Covenant ..”.

Which convention? Does it mean ICCPR? Please see the Wikipedia section CCPR: National implementation and effects. Article 10 says

All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 2. (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons; (b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication. 3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.

Nothing there that says that a breach of this article is torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(47) There is not a large body of international case law on conditions directly analogous to US supermax facilities, mainly because the USA is virtually unique in housing prisoners on such a scale in such units. However, the Human Rights Committee found violations of Article 10(1) of the ICCPR (right to be treated with human dignity) in several Uruguayan cases in the 1980s in which prisoners were held in conditions which combined isolation with constant non-contact surveillance, a lack of access to natural light and exercise, together with other cruel treatment. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has also found conditions in several isolation units in Europe to be incompatible with international standards for humane treatment.[5]--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carwil (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 March 2006

There is not a large body of international case law. I have not counted them but I doubt if there are more than about a dozen cases. The ICCPR Article 10 (see above) has nothing to say about torture. The right to be "treated with human dignity" is a long way removed from torture which is:

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.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As interesting as a detailed debate on these questions would be, there are two other operative/applicable definitions. The US Congress' prohibition on torture (18 U.S.C. § 2340 (available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2340) says:

"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;

The INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE says

Article 2: For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

Article 3: The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture:

a. A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so.

b. A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto.

Now, the US is obviously governed by the first, but is not a signatory or a ratifier of the second. I think it's clear that rape by guards in prison meets the US legal definition, while permitting a preponderance of prison rape by inmates (which I didn't put in for just this reason) meets the second. Bonus question: does each state that doesn't ratify a treaty get exempted from us calling their behavior according to it? If you find this compelling please restore the rape sections.

Meanwhile, Abner Louima's case meets not one, but two of the purposes described in the CAT (punishment for an alleged crime, discrimination ["They said, 'Take this, nigger,'" 30-year-old Abner Louima said in an interview from the hospital. -CNN ]); I'm restoring it. --Carwil 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As you point out unlike UNCAT, the US has not signed or ratified the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE so the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION is not legaly relevant to this debate.

Article "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;... Why did you not include it in this summary?

You may "think it's clear that rape by guards in prison meets the US legal definition" however if US lawyers agreed with you interpretation there would be court cases of the breach of US domestic laws on torture, and so presumably you will have no problem finding cases of such torture. Likewise if the Abner Louima is a case of a breach of the US domestic law on torture, then there will be similar legal actions. If you can not find any it would suggest that there is no legal case of torture to answer and you opinion is not correct. To date you have not provided reliable and reputable sources (WP:V) for these assertions please do so--Philip Baird Shearer 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The domestic law cited above is criminal law, so only Federal prosecutors are the only ones empowered to apply it. Further, they are constrained by rules against double jeopardy from charging it for activities already prosecuted under state laws.

This argument does not hold water. There is no double jeopardy, See the Rodney King case where the Federal government brought a case of violating King's civil rights[6] after the local courts had found after the police involved were found not guilty of assault. If a person has not already been tried for torture they can be tried for that specific crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, prosecution and/or litigation makes a bad metric for torture. In the extreme case of Abu Ghraib, major perpetrators have not been charged under the torture statute. State actors have a conflict of interest in prosecuting their own agents for outrageous acts, and a relationship to maintain with law enforcement officials. Private lawyers will choose which statute to apply based on burden of proof and likelihood of success.

We are not talking about external political events, which effect national security. We are talking about domestic issues. Even in the case of Abu Ghraib, a highly political issue, that would inevitablely lead to the death of US soldiers if proceeded with, some people were prosecuted and allegations of order from higher up the command chain are in the court record. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In other cases cited in the article, this is self-evident. Putting someone in boiling water (Uzbekistan) or forcing them to masturbate for an audience (Abu Ghraib) prima facie meets the definition of torture. Otherwise the article would be Torture prosecutions in recent times. If you still disagree, let's solicit another opinion from editors of this page or go to "Third Opinion".

As I said above: "If there is torture in by US police and prison service officers then there will be lots of court cases which can be quoted as proof of this. There is no need to use blog sites as sources of alleged torture." At the very least there would be acres of commentary in the heavy weight US newspapers about it being torture. There is after all lots and lots about the US involvement in alledged international torture. So far you have not produced one article in the Washington Post of New York Times to back up your allegations. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the following text from Rights for All, an Amnesty International report (fact-checked to fit Verifiability) subsantiates the police summary, which I'm restoring.

Suspects have been tortured or ill-treated inside police stations. In September 1997, two former officers from the Adelanto Police Department, San Bernardino County, California, were jailed for two years on federal charges, after pleading guilty to beating a suspect during questioning and forcing another man to lick blood off the floor in 1994. At the time of writing, four NYPD officers were awaiting trial, charged with the torture of Abner Louima in August 1997.

What was the crime that the police in California were they jailed for? Was it torture or some other crime? When was "time of writing"? Were the NYPD officers found guilty of torturing Abner Louima? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ten men who were allegedly tortured and signed confessions in a Chicago police station remain on death row.[32] Allegations of systematic torture in one police station over a 20-year period came to light in 1989, involving at least 65 suspects who reported torture including electric shocks and having plastic bags placed over their heads. The cases were reopened by Chicago’s Office of Special Investigations in the 1990s and the area’s commander was dismissed. Other officers, however, were allowed to retire with full benefits.

This mentions alledged torture. As no one was prosseduted, it is exactly that "alledged". Further it has nothing to do with the allagations you placed in the text of the article page.--Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OC spray has sometimes been applied in a deliberately cruel manner to suspects who are already restrained. In October 1997, Sheriff’s deputies in Humbolt County, California, swabbed liquid OC spray directly into the eyes of non-violent anti-logging demonstrators, action Amnesty International condemned as tantamount to torture.

What is OC? "tantamount to torture" is not torture. Are there any prosecutions over this and what was the outcome of any prosections --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Iberia Parish Jail, Louisiana: A lawsuit filed by the Justice Department in 1996 claimed that sheriff’s deputies had routinely subjected inmates to "cruel and unusual punishment, and physical and mental torture" by leaving them strapped in restraint chairs for extended periods in their own urine and excrement. According to the lawsuit, prisoners in the chair had their feet strapped behind them and their hands shackled behind or beneath their buttocks. Some prisoners had tape wrapped round their mouths and football helmets placed backwards on their heads. They were, "rarely, if ever, examined by medical personnel while restrained or after release". One 18-year-old inmate was reportedly held in the chair for eight days, another inmate for 43 hours.[114] The jail authorities agreed to stop using the chair and hogtying (restraining with the ankles bound from behind to the wrists) inmates as part of a pre-trial settlement in December 1996. (--Carwil 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

This is much better. What is the source for "A lawsuit filed by the Justice Department in 1996" ? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Further on rape, the UN Special Rapporteur, Peter Koojimans, speaking in an official capacity said:

Professor Kooijmans, in his oral introduction to his 1992 report to the Commission on Human Rights, noted that "[s]ince it was clear that rape or other forms of sexual assault against women in detention were a particularly ignominious violation of the inherent dignity and the right to physical integrity of the human being, they accordingly constituted an act of torture." (E/CN.4/1992/SR.21, para. 35). (quoted in E/CN.4/1995/34, PDF online at [7]).

I could not access the document you gave is this the same document? If it is, then the complete paragraph (No. 16 ) states in the first sentence "Methods of torture involving sexual abuse may be characterized as essentially gender-based". This makes clear that they are talking about rape as a method of torture. Not rape as a sexual crime.--Philip Baird Shearer

Finally, the same rapporteur, in a report outlining the scope of the mandate of the SRT, notes on the purposes listed in the CAT [confession, punishment, any reason based on discrimination], that "the list... appears to be self-explanatory and not exclusive ('such purposes as ...')." Likewise, the US and OAS laws extend to all purposes.( E/CN.4/1986/15).

I don't understand what you have written in this paragraph --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One last request, please ask for a third opinion before concluding that sodomizing a suspect with a broom is not torture. --Carwil 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the motives of the person performing the act. Some people who are on the receiving end enjoy such practices and are willing to pay for it, in which case it defiantly is not torture. You and I do not have to decide the issue, because as we are talking about domestic crimes within the United States, then one would expect the victim to file a case against the perpetrator, and for that case to received publicity. In which case there will be information on the case and if the motive for the act was as a form of torture that will be apparent from the transcripts of, and the commentaries on, the case. As I said more than once: If there is torture in by US police and prison service officers then there will be lots of court cases which can be quoted as proof of this. There is no need to use blog sites as sources of alleged torture. At the very least there would be acres of commentary in the heavy weight US newspapers about it being torture. There is after all lots and lots about the US involvement in alledged international torture cases. So far you have not produced one article in the Washington Post of New York Times to back up your allegations (or for that matter any other respectable US or foreign broadsheet). You have mentioned at least two incidents on this page where people were put on trial for torture in the US. If they were found guilty of torture then providing the sources meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria then I for one will not object to their inclusion in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britons tortured many communists to death in 1946

(I copied this discussion from Talk:Torture. This is recent but before 1948. -- Petri Krohn 13:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Big scandal and cover-up described in recent Guardian news article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745489,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

I added some material in Bad Nenndorf. Someone had already added the links. The agency involved was called Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre (CSDIC). Petri Krohn 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abner Louima

is now fully referenced. We have several clearly referenced, criminally prosecuted, torturous assaults in one paragraph which should confirm that "police brutality has at times escalated to torture," a fairly cautious claim. I won't dignify the "some times consensual" argument with a reply. The Louima case even meets the Gonzalez memo's standard of damage to internal organs (Louima's bladder). Mainstream sources consistently referred to the event as torture, notably CNN and the New York Times. I hope we can put this debate to rest. --Carwil 04:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torture legalized in the US

I haven't followed all the turns, but was torture declared legal in the US or is it still pending? // Liftarn

[edit] Main page for Torture and the United States

I've created a new main page, Torture and the United States, merging material from Uses of torture in recent times and Human rights in the United States. The merger is still sloppy, but I've tried to clean it up and at least create a clear format for references. Summary sections could make two very long articles shorter. The naming (not Torture in the United States, which will redirect) is due to the extensive interest in US practice of torture abroad, and because no neat line seemed possible to draw between this and the domestic legal issues. Have fun editing!--Carwil 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I think I have tagged an article as globally "POV" by use of a template maybe a couple of times in 10,000+ edits. I try to fix them first. But in this case I don't know how best to and it needs collaboration.

WP:NPOV requires that an article, overall, presents an impression that gives a balanced view of the subject and aspects. Without taking sides, it seems obvious that there is much more said about torturous acts in UK/USA and these countries therefore have sections so long, compared to others, as to give an unbalance (non-neutral) impression of the subject.

There is a lot to say about those countries, and the material given is valid. But a way must be found to show it, without distorting a reasonably fair balance.

Perhaps one easy fix would be to content-fork those, as they stand, to "torture in the UK" and "torture in the USA" (the latter now exists), then use edit summaries to ensure the sections in this article remain a balanced size, proportionate to other countries. That would work well.

Thoughts and suggestions? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I created Torture and the United States for just that purpose. Just make sure that nothing is deleted that doesn't make its way to that page.--Carwil 04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Human Rights Watch's website, as well as my own knowledge, I'd say there probably should be a mention of allegations concerning North African nations and also concerning North Korea. Probably Myanmar as well. I'm not willing to go through the work on it though. Still here's HRW on North Korea, HRW on Burma, HRW on Libya, Amnesty International on Torture in Egypt, Amnesty International on torture in Myanmar, AI on North Korea, and some Google News results. (Also some news archive results on police torture with several nations currently listed filtered out)--T. Anthony 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

And while we're talking about reorganization, are people up for switching to <ref> tags throughout? Editing without them is exhausting and we have two numberings right now.--Carwil 04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

These days I'd take switching as a "given" on most articles. Go for it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] torture in the gulf nations !

It seems like the author has turned a BLIND eye to such countries like the smaller gulf nations. Countries like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar both have an unbelievable history in torture both against its citizens and foreigners. These cases are well known and they are in the thousands. You might want to look into the case were Tover SIX THOUSAND Qatari nationals were stripped of the nationalities and all documents. They were sacked from their jobs and kicked out of their homes literally. those who dared to talk were sentenced and tortured. Plus the secret police and the horrors they committed and still do to this day especially in the emirate of abu dhabi .Dubai is by far better than the rest of the emirates , so long as u don't do anything "stupid".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samjianka (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

So why don't you add to the article ?

Streona (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If there are thousands of well known cases, as you say(and I don't doubt it), reference them and add it to the article. And yes, Abu Dhabi is probably worse than dubai, and Sharjah is probably worse than both, but aren't all of these countries that torture pretty much equal on the fucked-up scale?KVND 01:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source this!

FYI, here are the unsourced statements I found:

- In 2002, in Cologne, Germany, a history of physical torture at Eigelstein police station only came to light because the victim died, and a post-mortem examination unearthed the facts.
- Under Enver Hoxha's Communist dictatorship, torture was widely used.
- The government headed by Baathist Saddam Hussein made extensive use of torture, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
- Israel has used "moderate physical pressure" on terrorist suspects defined as "ticking bombs" for their knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks against civilians which the information they possessed had the power to prevent, at least since the 1970s. In 1987 the Israeli Supreme Court formed a special commission headed by retired Justice Moshe Landau, to review the whole question of physical pressure during investigations of this kind. In their report they reinforced the criteria for the use of "moderate physical pressure".
- Russian army is believed to use torture extensively in Chechnya and the surrounding districts, as investigative tool, and as a deterrent/punishment for captured fighters.
- Torture was widely practiced in the Soviet Union prior to its transformation to a federation in the 1980s, to extract confessions from suspects, especially in case of alleged plots against the security of the state or alleged collaboration with "imperialist powers".

--Carwil 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argument in Favor of the Article

This is a useful article and should not be deleted. It is ohvious that countries that engage in torture would want it to be deleted because they do not want their actions to be documented. This is also a topic that should be separate from the main article on torture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.74 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Sources

Two steps toward a global comparison on torture are provided by

Level of torture as evaluated in US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights, 1999 5: prevalent, widespread or frequent torture 4: common, several or many reports of torture 3: some use of torture, or incidents without redress 2: unsubstantiated, isolated or redressed instances of torture 1: No allegations of torture No data Source: Hathaway 2002.

Oona A. Hathaway's Torture Scale (in "Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?," The Yale Law Journal, 2002) a quantitative coding based on the United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights (yes, that's a political bias, which must be noted). Annual ratings for 1985 to 1998. Methodology described at p. 1969-1972 (35-38 in PDF). Data table at 2034ff (100ff in PDF). Online at [8]

Self-reported assessments of the prevalence of torture in people's own countries in the Gallup International Millennium Survey, Survey shows no tolerance for Torture.

--Carwil 14:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A similar map, based on Amnesty International's assesments is at Evil under the Sun.

A map prepared by the US has "no data" for the US? Huh? 199.125.109.74 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The State Department doesn't produce a human rights report on the United States. Its reports are used as a source for Hathaway's coding, which is illustrated on this map.--Carwil 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan and Iraq.

U.S. operatives killed detainees during interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ACLU (2005-10-24). Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

via Top 25 censored stories of 2007: 7 US operatives torture detainees to death in Afghanistan and Iraq. Project Censored. Sonoma State University (2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

[edit] China

Shouldn't china be added to this list? their abuse is clearly documented - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.147.50 (talk • contribs)

If you have documentation, add it. 199.125.109.85 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference #10

It links to a Yahoo page that declares that the article was not found. Recommend change or removal. Meta 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. 199.125.109.74 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguably Legal ?

No they are not.

Streona (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

There's a dispute tag on the Singapore section, but I don't see what is being disputed? Caning does fit the letter of the definition of Torture, viz. any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as ... punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed. Jpatokal (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] France

I am not sure most of the information in this section (France) is relevant to the article, as most of the exmples given don't constitute torture . I would suggest maybe removing the latter part of this section altogether Jihmiller (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So any objections to removing some of this section? Jihmiller (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is a whole controversy as to where to draw the line between torture and some more euphemistic phrase. The British Government went to great lengths to appeal against a finding of torture in Northern Ireland which was eventually downgraded to "severe mistreatment". What the hell difference does it actually make is beyond me. If you succeed in breaking a person in captivity it amounts to the same thing. Rape and beatings will achieve this just as surely as thumbscrews. Calling it something else is just letting the perpetrators off the hook. The French have been some of the major innovators and exporters of torture in the 20th century. -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no references for the first part of this section, but i really wouldn't want to get into suggesting completely deleting the "france" section, as the only parts referenced dont seem to be relevant. The rest of this section also seems to need some work.

"France has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the conditions of detention in prisons, including the use of torture on detainees. Although the law and the Constitution prohibits any kind of torture whatsoever, such practices happen."
As far as i can find that report by the ECHR was in reference to French deportation of individuals to countries where they would be at risk of being tortured, if that is indeed the case the above section needs re-writing, otherwise it needs referencing, as i may well be wrong.

"In 2004, the Inspector General of the National Police received 469 registered complaints about illegitimate police violence during the first 11 months of the year, down from 500 during the same period in 2003. There were 59 confirmed cases of police violence, compared to 65 in the previous year."
The above section doesn't seem to relate to torure and would appear to be very selective copying and pasting of a 2004 report.

"In April 2004, the ECHR condemned the French Government for violating article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in their treatment of Giovanni Rivas. In the 1997 Mr Rivas, at the time a minor, was kicked in the testicles while in police custody, resulting in him needing urgent medical attention[23].Article 3 prohibits the use of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
I have re-worked the above section a little, as it was simply a copy and paste from a 2004 US Department of state report.

"The head of the police station in Saint-Denis, near Paris, has been forced to resign after allegations of rape and other violences committed by the police force under his orders. Nine investigations concerning police abuse in this police station were done in 2005 by the IGS inspection of police.[24][25] These repeated abuses are one of the causes of the 2005 civil unrest.[26]Conditions in detention centers for illegal aliens have also been widely criticized by human rights NGO.In 2006, a young 20 years-old Serbian girl accused a policeman of attempting to have raped her in such a centre in Bobigny, in the suburbs of Paris, the year before[27]"
Again this doesn't seem to suggest torture, abuse, violence and rape but not necessarily torture. I would argue for more evidence of actual torture or deletion. Jihmiller (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rape is a form of torture that in many states, such as Saddam's Iraq became almost standard operating procedure for both men and women. In Chile this was often carried out by specially trained Alsatian dogs.--Streona (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that France has played a central part in the history of torture, since the French Republic legally banned it after the Revolution. In the 1930s they invented electrical torture in Indo-China using dynamos for telephones. After the Second World War, the French in an attempt to hold their failing empire together introduced torture schools at Paolo Condor in Vietnam and Phillipeville in Algeria. Much of this expertise was gained by the Foreign Legion's German personnel during WW2 and after the fall of Algiers was disseminated by them to South Africa, South America and the British empire in Yemen (Fort Morbut) and Hola camp in Kenya. This has been highlighted by often personally very brave individuals like Henri Alleg, Franz Fanon and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. many editors do not seem to like it that heir own favoured countries have been accused of torture. Well it is not POV to point out unpalatable truths. The fact that other countries may be worse is irrelevent- if you have evidence about say the Syrians use of "The German Chair" (which hinges backwards to stretch the backbone)- put it in. don't use it as an excuse for say Israeli use of "Palestinian Hanging". --Streona (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While rape has indeed been used as been used as or as an element of torture, this doesnt mean that every case of rape is torture. I don't question the argument that France has used torture extensively in the past and may well still be doing so, what i am questioning is whether most of this section is relevant to that history. I would suggest you put an expanded version of the infomation above in the french section, as it would be far more informative and relevant than this section is currently, rather than defending fallacious examples of "torture". Also, you say that "many editors do not seem to like it that heir own favoured countries have been accused of torture". Well i would just like to point out that i have no axe to grind as far as France is concerned and i have no French connection, as it were, which is precisely why i chose this section to see about maybe trying to help a little, in improving this section and article. Jihmiller (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just found a reference to a film called "Death Squadrons; The French School" by Marie-Monique Robin which essentially confirms the above thesis. Thu I will post on the article as this is a better reference than the numerous individual books that I have ploughed through. What is significant about the incidents referred to is that they were committed by police officers under orders from the "Head of the Police Station", which would imply that the rapes were part of a policy rather than simply due to priapic policemen. I suggest that this would be torture.--Streona (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia controversial topics

Hidden category: Articles with limited geographic scope